2001-12-05December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
December 5, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 9:05 a.m.), Ms.
Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Walter F. Perkins.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Senior Deputy Clerk, Laurel W. Bentley, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were no other matters to be discussed at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Resolution of Appreciation: Nancy O'Brien.
Ms. Thomas said that on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and local
government, she would like to honor and recognize Nancy O'Brien for her outstanding efforts during the
past 15 years as Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. During her
tenure with the TJPDC, Nancy oversaw the implementation of a variety of initiatives including transit,
housing, sustainability, economic development, workforce development and criminal justice planning, all
which contributed significantly to the quality of life in the community.
Nancy was instrumental in forming the Thomas Jefferson Venture and the Thomas Jefferson
Partnership for Economic Development as well as in creating a comprehensive workforce development
system for the region.
Nancy was a driving force in the formation and development of the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability
Council and helped secure a highly competitive grant from the Federal Highway Administration for the
Jefferson Area Eastern Planning Initiative.
Nancy has been involved in a large number of transportation-related projects, including
development of the Charlottesville-Albemarle County Metropolitan Planning Organization, development of
the TJPDC Rural Transportation Planning Program with VDOT, and development of the regional
RideShare Program.
Nancy also championed human service causes including development of new initiatives and
programs in response to Federal and state Welfare Reform laws and formation of the regional HOME
consortium as a Federal entitlement area, one of very few such regional entities in the country.
Before and during her tenure with the TJPDC, Nancy has been active in numerous organizations
and causes focused on the betterment of the community including time spent as a Planning Commissioner,
City Councilor and Mayor of the City of Charlottesville.
Ms. Thomas said the community has been strengthened by the contributions and commitment of
citizens such as Nancy O'Brien whose dedication, professionalism and advocacy for critical issues make
Albemarle County a better place to live and work.
Ms. Thomas then presented to Ms. OBrien a plaque containing these words.
=
Ms. OBrien said a lot of what has been said in this resolution is a result of the kind of leadership
=
that members of this Board have given to Albemarle County and the region. From the Sustainability
Council to the MPO to the TJPDC to the Workforce Investment Act, the Board of Supervisors has stepped
forward and provided the kind of political leadership that allows people like her to do their job. The kind of
support received from Mr. Tucker, Mr. Cilimberg and Ms. Roxanne White has been significant in their ability
to make a difference to the region, and to do that in a way that is consistent with the desires of the people in
Albemarle County as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. For the support and leadership that this
Board has given the region and Albemarle County, she thanked the Board members.
Mr. Martin said he came to this area as a student in 1973, and he was reading about Ms. OBrien
=
then. He left as a student in 1978 after graduating, and he read about her then. When he came back to
the region in 1982, he read about her. Wherever he has gone in this community to do anything, Ms.
OBrien or Mr. Fife have always been there, and it is amazing how much time and energy and commitment
=
they have given the community.
Mr. Dorrier asked Ms. OBrien her opinion of the future of regional planning for this area. Ms.
=
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
OBrien said it is a real challenge, and the challenge focuses on the physical borders of each locality.
=
Border issues will be significant and important to work on with the other localities. There are challenges in
the human service area, particularly with those people who are not rising with the rest of the average
population, who either have deficiencies in income or in family structure. There are people who are being
left behind, and that is a challenge for all, both as elected officials and citizens of the region. She hopes
that by planning together, we leave this place looking better.
_______________
Not Docketed: Presentation of Governor's Technology Awards for Monticello Avenue Community
Portal.
Ms. Thomas said it is with great pride she announces that Albemarle County has been named the
silver winner in the category of local government for its participation in the Monticello Avenue Community
Portal project in the 2001 Governors Technology Awards program. This award was presented at Virginia
=
Military Institute, Lexington, Virginia, Commonwealth of Virginia Information Technology Symposium on
September 25, 2001.
Award organizers praised Monticello Avenue as a prime example of using technology effectively,
A
efficiently and innovatively to better serve Virginia citizens, communities and businesses everywhere. It is
@
particularly gratifying to win this award as Albemarle County moves forward with improving its website and
introducing new egovernment applications.
A@
Ms. Thomas thanked staff members Fred Kruger, Elaine Pack and Lee Catlin, as well as Rick Huff
who was the Albemarle County Deputy County Executive at the time of Monticello Avenues conception, for
=
their work on this project.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve Items 6.1 and 6.3 through 6.9, to remove Item 6.2 from the agenda, and to accept
the remaining items as information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
__________
Item 6.1. Installation of "Child at Play" Sign(s) on Candlewyck Drive (Rt. 1650) and Cobblestone
Lane (Rt. 1652) in Candlewyck Subdivision.
It was noted in the executive summary that the residents of Candlewyck Subdivision have
requested that the Virginia Department of Transportation install "Child At Play" signage on Candlewyck
Drive (Route 1650) and Cobblestone Lane (Route 1652); both are secondary roads located off of Old
Ballard Road. The request came from the Candlewyck Homeowner's Association. There are many
children living in this subdivision and there are no sidewalks. The children have to walk in the street to visit
one another or to reach designated school bus stops. There are several open fields that also attract the
children. There is no specific, designated, play area or other attractor/activity area. The proposed location
of the sign will not conflict with any existing traffic control devices. Staff will work with VDOT to determine
the exact location for the sign. Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution supporting the request.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the residents of Candlewyck Subdivision are concerned about traffic
in their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that
play in the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the residents believe that a Child At Play sign would help alleviate
A@
some the concerns;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDOT to install the Child At
A
Play sign(s) on Candlewyck Drive (Rt. 1650) and Cobblestone Lane (Rt. 1652).
@
__________
Item 6.2. Set public hearing for March 6, 2002, for Owensville Road (Route 678) relocation
right-of-way abandonment. (It was requested that this item be removed from the agenda.)
__________
Item 6.3. Authorize County Executive to sign Deeds of Easement for Ricky Road/Woodstock Drive
stormwater drainage improvement project.
It was noted in the executive summary that in April 2000, the Board approved an Engineering
Department recommendation that all future stormwater drainage facilities that serve the public (including
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
stormwater basins) be dedicated to public use by a permanent drainage easement.
Stormwater runoff in the older sections of Hessian Hills Subdivision, i.e., South Bennington Road
and Woodstock Drive, is handled through roadside ditches and low-lying, private properties. Without a
network of curb and gutter to contain the storm flow on these streets, residents along Ricky Road to the
south occasionally receive excessive flows. Ricky Road residents have periodically complained about
flooded yards and basements. In 1993, the County identified this problem and appropriated funding in the
Capital Improvements Program. The original project scope attempted to contain the storm flow by installing
storm pipes in several backyards of Ricky Road parcels. This scope proved difficult to procure as the
County's contractor would destroy and replace improvements such as fencing, shrubbery and sheds. Since
potential bidders were reluctant to replace these improvements, staff revised the project scope to include
installation of storm pipe at the source of runoff, i.e., South Bennington Road and Woodstock Drive, thus
limiting the disruption of mature residential properties. The new design essentially redirects storm flow to
an existing storm pipe located within the Charlottesville City limits at 1602 Ricky Road.
This CIP project will complete a regional stormwater management system of underground storm
pipes located within the VDOT right-of-way along Woodstock Drive. Where the project traverses private
property, three parcel owners (two County, one City) have expressed intent to dedicate a permanent
drainage easement to the County and City for the purpose of a drainage easement project. Staff has
worked with both VDOT and the City Engineer to insure conformance with pertinent roadway and
engineering standards. The City will reimburse the County for all work done in the City, which is estimated
at approximately $10,000.00. Staff recommends that the Engineering and Public Works Department be
authorized to pursue permanent easements for the Ricky Road - Woodstock Drive stormwater drainage
improvement project and that the County Executive be authorized to sign the deeds of easement.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Engineering and Public Works Department was
authorized to pursue permanent easements for the Ricky Road - Woodstock Drive stormwater
drainage improvement project and the County Executive was authorized to sign the deeds of
easement.
__________
Item 6.4. Authorize County Executive to execute County/VDOT Agreement pending dedication of
road right-of-way over existing Hollymead Lake Dam.
It was noted in the executive summary that Springridge is a development located at the end of
Powell Creek Drive and to the east of the Hollymead Lake Dam. Approval of the Springridge PRD (ZMA-
98-13) was recommended by the Planning Commission with the construction of a road over the dam to
provide interconnection of the neighborhoods. On May 12, 1999, the Board approved the Springridge PRD
with proffers. Proffer #4 provided for the developer to construct a public road over the Hollymead Lake
Dam and to dedicate to public use a 120-foot wide strip of land over the dam for the road right-of-way.
VDOT will accept for maintenance in the State Secondary Road System a public road that crosses
a dam. However, the municipality is required to submit various documentation, including: 1) evidence that
the right-of-way over the dam is dedicated to public use, and, 2) a VDOT/County agreement (signed by the
County) regarding the dam and road maintenance. In brief, the agreement assigns VDOT responsibility for
the road and relieves VDOT of any responsibility and liability for the dam.
As identified in the staff presentation during the May 12, 1999, meeting, the consequence of the
County accepting ownership of the dam is the County's assumption of the liability and responsibility for its
maintenance, repair and inspections as necessary to comply with the State Department of Conservation &
Recreation permit for the dam. However, the benefits of County ownership of the dam are: it allows for the
construction of a public road linking the adjacent developments/neighborhoods; and, will provide local
A
trips with an alternative to using the regional road network - specific standards stated in the
@
Transportation chapter of the County of Albemarle Land Use Plan.
A@A@
A copy of the draft County/VDOT agreement, which is a standardized document that VDOT
endorses and uses across the State, was forwarded for the Boards review. The right-of-way is to be
=
dedicated with the Springridge final subdivision plat. Approval of the plat is pending the Boards action to
=
accept the dedication and the County/VDOT agreement. Should the Board accept the right-of-way
dedication and the provisions of the County/VDOT agreement: 1) the developer will record the right-of-way
dedication in the County Clerks Office; 2) the County Engineer will enter the deed book reference in the
=
County/VDOT agreement; and, 3) the final agreement will be presented to the County Executive for
signature. Staff recommends that the County Executive be authorized to execute the County/VDOT
agreement, pending dedication of the road right-of-way over the existing Hollymead Lake Dam.
(Mr. Martin said there will be a road going across the dam, and there has not been a big uproar
from the residents.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized to execute the
County/VDOT agreement, after the developer has recorded the plat dedicating the road right-of-way
over the existing Hollymead Lake Dam.
__________
Item 6.5. Appropriations: Various local government and education programs and projects,
$2016.00 (Form #2001-032); $45,013.00 (Form #2001-034); $137,927.40 (Form #2001-035).
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
It was noted in the executive summary that the Code of Virginia 15.2-2507 stipulates that the
'
County must amend its current budget only if the additional appropriated amounts exceed one percent of
the original budget or $500,000.00, whichever is the lesser. Subsequent to the November 7 budget
amendment public hearing, three requests for additional appropriations were received. These requests,
which are described on Attachment A (attached to the staff report), total $184,956.40, which is less than the
$500,000.00 requiring a public hearing. These appropriation requests are being presented for the Board's
consideration and approval at this time without a public hearing or an approved budget amendment. If
approved, this appropriated amount will be included in the next budget amendment request currently
scheduled for the January 2, 2002, meeting. Staff requests approval of Appropriations #2001-032, 20010-
34, 2001-035, totaling $184,956.40, as detailed on the appropriation forms.
Appropriation #2001-032, $2016.00. Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of
$205.00 from Phillip and Paige Zelikow, $171.00 from Blaine and Jean Norum, $170.00 from James and
Marcia Straker, and $170.00 from Michael and Debra Phillips. These donations will be used for the gifted
program at the school.
Western Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $1000.00 from Sara and
Douglas duPont. This donation will be used to support the Fine Arts Program at the school.
Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $50.00 from NICHD
Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, and a donation from Carl and Karen Wise in the
amount of $250.00. These donations will be used to purchase instructional materials for the school.
Appropriation #2001-034, $45,013.00. This is a Department of Justice grant for which the
operational strategies and capabilities are confidential under Justice Department guidelines. The
operations for this program are funded with a $45,013.00 Federal Department of Justice grant. There is no
local match.
Appropriation #2001-035, $137,927.40. Monticello High School received a donation in the
amount of $292.00 from Ronald and Claire Kent. This donation will be used for the gifted program at the
school.
Western Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $1000.00 from Williams Gas
Pipeline. This donation will be used to help pay for new band uniforms.
Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $6800.00. The Stone
Robinson PTO donated $6750.00 for teachers to purchase instructional/recreational supplies and Mr. A.
William Ordel donated $50.00 to help pay for a presenter for the fourth grade science project.
Crozet Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $2000.00 from the Crozet
Elementary School PTO. This donation will be used to help fund the Artist-in-Residency Program.
The Shannon Foundation for Excellence in Public Education has awarded Sue Davies of
Woodbrook Elementary School a grant in the amount of $496.00. This grant award will assist students in
early reading skills.
Henley Middle School received a donation from Douglas and Sarah DuPont in the amount of
$2200.00. This donation will support Henley's Cultural Enrichment Program, which funds three
artist-in-residencies: Sculpture, Writer and Dramatic Interpretation. The projects will involve interactive
activities to include hands-on-learning experiences for students with performing, visual and musical arts.
The Albemarle School Division received a grant from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community
Foundation in the amount of $7000.00. This grant will help to fund Albemarle High School's Radio Diaries
Project. Students in Standard Level Classes will have an active role in the study of literature and history and
will continue to improve their writing and reading achievement.
The Albemarle School Division received a grant, Learn and Serve Virginia, from the Department of
Education in the amount of $7450.00. This grant provides funding for the Reading Together to Reach the
A
Stars project which will develop and implement a model program of reading buddies (pairs second and
@
third graders with preschool children) to ease the transition of preschoolers into elementary school. It will
also provide second and third graders with an opportunity to be leaders and practice reading and writing
skills.
Martha Jefferson Hospital awarded the MJH Innovative Child Care Improvement Initiative Grant in
the amount of $1000.00 to V.L. Murray Elementary School. This grant will fund a program in nutrition
training for students and parents, with hands-on projects and encourage home reading projects.
The Textbook Fund collected $3615.41 from schools for textbooks which were lost, damaged or
sold. It is requested that this money be appropriated for FY 2001-02 to purchase replacement textbooks.
The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act mandate that special
education and related services be provided to all eligible students including those who are incarcerated.
Albemarle Schools will provide compulsory special education to eligible inmates housed in the
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail. The Virginia Department of Education will reimburse the School
Division for costs associated with these services.
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
(Ms. Humphris said there is an appropriation listed for $106,073.99 for the Special Ed-Jail
Program. She said the Jail Board thought some months ago that this money would not be received. She
suggested to Mr. Tucker that Mr. Isom be notified that the money has been received.
Mr. Martin said he is continually amazed at the number of donations that citizens give to the school
system. Ms. Humphris said she thinks it is heartening that people see the public schools as a place where
they can make an individual difference. Ms. Thomas said she does acknowledge all of these donations on
behalf of the Board.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolutions of Appropriation were
adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001/02
NUMBER: 2001-032
FUND: EDUCATION
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF DONATIONS
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 2304 61104 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies $ 716.00
1 2302 61411 580000 Misc Expenses 1,000.00
1 2210 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 300.00
TOTAL $2,016.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $2,016.00
TOTAL $2,016.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001/02
NUMBER: 2001-034
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1528 31013 120000 WAGES-OVERTIME $ 4,600.00
1 1528 31013 210000 FICA 413.00
1 1528 31013 312500 PROF SERVICES 30,000.00
1 1528 31013 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 5,000.00
1 1528 31013 800710 SOFTWARE 5,000.00
TOTAL $45,013.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1528 33000 330414 FEDERAL GRANT DOJ $45,013.00
TOTAL $45,013.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001/02
NUMBER: 2001-035
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR VARIOUS SCHOOL DONATIONS,
GRANTS AND PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 2304 61104 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES $ 292.00
1 2302 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES 1,000.00
1 2203 61101 301210 CONTRACT SERVICES 2,000.00
1 2210 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES 6,800.00
1 3502 60606 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES 496.00
1 3104 60252 312500 PROF SVC INST 2,200.00
1 3104 60301 312500 PROF SVC INST 2,000.00
1 3104 60301 800100 MACH/EQUIP 5,000.00
1 3126 63328 550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE 500.00
1 3126 63328 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES 6,950.00
1 3104 61216 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES 1,000.00
1 2114 61101 602000 TEXTBOOKS 3,615.41
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
1 3212 61102 111400 MANAGEMENT-OTHER 27,325.02
1 3212 61102 112100 SALARIES-TEACHER 43,540.80
1 3212 61102 210000 FICA 5,421.23
1 3212 61102 221000 VRS 7,703.11
1 3212 61102 231000 HEALTH INS 4,837.50
1 3212 61102 232000 DENTAL INS 180.00
1 3212 61102 241000 GROUP LIFE 566.33
1 3212 61102 550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE 500.00
1 3212 61102 580500 STAFF DEV 1,000.00
1 3212 61102 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES 10,000.00
1 3212 61102 800100 MACH/EQUIP 5,000.00
TOTAL $137,927.40
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION $ 10,092.00
2 3502 18000 181223 SHANNON FOUNDATION GRANT 496.00
2 3104 18000 189900 DONATION 2,200.00
2 3104 18000 181240 CH'VILLE/ALBEMARLE GRANT 7,000.00
2 3126 24000 240306 LEARN/SERVE GRANT 7,450.00
2 3104 18000 181252 MJH HEALTH GRANT 1,000.00
2 2000 19000 190214 TEXTBOOK FUND 3,615.41
2 3212 24000 240116 SP ED JAIL PROGRAM 106,073.99
TOTAL $137,927.40
__________
Item 6.6. Approve minor changes to Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering
Manual and set public hearing for January 9, 2002, to amend 7-204(c) of the Road Naming and Property
'
Numbering Ordinance.
It was noted in the executive summary that in an effort to incorporate efficiencies for administration,
staff has identified several sections of the Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual for change as
listed below.
1. Part I, Section 5, page 3 of the Manual. Removal of road types Arch and Nook is proposed.
A@A@
These road types are not recognized by the United States Postal Service. Furthermore, the County of
Albemarle does not currently have any road names with these road types. This change reflects the
County's commitment to a nationally-accepted road naming standard.
2. Part I, Section 6(e), paragraph 3, page 7 of the Manual. It is proposed that the following
sentence ... the proposed name is otherwise consistent with Part I of this Manual, the agent shall forward
A
the road name change request to the Board of Supervisors for approval be changed to read "... the
@
proposed name is otherwise consistent with Part I of this Manual, the agent may make administrative
approval to correct errors in prior approvals of road names, otherwise the agent shall forward the road
name change request to the Board of Supervisors for approval. This change will allow for correction of
@
errors in prior approvals of road names (incorrect spelling of road names, etc.) to be handled more
expeditiously by administrative approval.
3. Part II, Section 1(a). It is proposed that Numbers assigned by any other person or entity shall
A
be recognized. be changed to read Numbers assigned by any other person or entity shall not be
@A
recognized.. This change corrects an obvious typographical error in the Manual.
@
4. Part II, Section 5(a). It is proposed that Even numbers shall occur on the north side of
A
east-west designated roads and the west side of north-south designated roads. be changed to read Even
@A
numbers shall occur on the right- hand side of the road in the direction of increasing range.. This change
@
reflects changes in current addressing policy/procedure.
5. Part III, Sections 3 and 4. It is proposed that these Sections be renumbered from 3 to 2 and
from 4 to 3. There is currently no Part III, Section 2 in the Manual.
6. Part III, Details C. The Department of Engineering and Public Works has asked that a new
graphic illustration be included to assist with road sign installation that would be noted as Details C at the
A@
end of the Manual.
After action has been taken on changes to the Manual, staff proposes that the Board authorize
advertisement for a public hearing to amend the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering
Ordinance as follows:
Section 7-204 (c). It is proposed that ... has been allowed under Part III, Section 3(c) of the
A
Manual .... be changed to read ... has been allowed under Part III, Section 2(d) of the Manual ..... This
@A@
change reflects a misidentification in the ordinance as to the pertinent section of the Manual. It also will
reflect the renumbering of this section of the Manual.
Staff recommends that the Board approve changes to the Albemarle County Road Naming and
Property Numbering Manual as requested and authorize advertisement of a public hearing date to amend
the Ordinance to incorporate section numbering changes approved for the Manual.
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved minor changes to the Albemarle
County Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual as set out in the executive summary and set
a public hearing for January 9, 2002, to amend Section 7-204(c) of the Road Naming and Property
Numbering Ordinance.
__________
Item 6.7. Ellerslie Drive Road Name Change Request.
It was noted in the executive summary that pursuant to Part I, Section 6(e) of the Albemarle County
Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual, road name change requests may be forwarded to the
Board for approval upon validation of certain criteria. A request to rename a portion of Ellerslie Drive as
Albemarle House Drive at the request of the landowner has been received. The property owner will be
responsible for costs associated with new signage. Staff recommends approval of the new road name as
requested and requests that staff be granted the authority to coordinate/implement the referenced change.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved of the request to rename a portion
of Ellerslie Drive as Albemarle House Drive and to grant staff the authority to coordinate/implement
the referenced change.
__________
Item 6.8. Progress Report on Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program.
It was noted in the executive summary that the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE)
Program received six applications for its second round. Properties were ranked by a series of objective
criteria including open space resources, threat of conversion to developed use, natural, cultural and scenic
resources, and County fund leveraging from outside sources. From the second pool of applications, all six
applications are eligible for funding by virtue of scoring at least 15 points. In addition to the new pool of
applications for 2001-02, three applications from last year were included for the second round. Though all
were eligible last year, none of these applications scored high enough in the ranking order to qualify for an
appraisal or receive funding from ACE. At their request, they were added to this year's list and ranked
according to points scored from the evaluation criteria. The most common source of points for all
properties included elimination of development rights, length of road frontage, working family farm,
mountaintop protection and location next to an existing easement or protected open space.
Based on the projected easement value using the appraisals from last year as a guideline, it
appears ACE can afford to purchase the development rights on all six of the new applications (for 2001-02)
plus the McCaskill property, a re-enrolled application from last year. At its November 15 meeting, the ACE
Committee approved the final ranking priority list recommended by staff (see Attachment A - on file). It
A@
also recommended that the Board recommend appraisals for all seven of the properties described.
Assuming a revised and improved RFP for appraisals is mailed out in the next week, staff
anticipates the following time line in order to complete the purchase of conservation easements: Mid
February - completion of appraisals; Mid March - appraisals are reviewed, accepted by the Appraisal
Review Committee and sent to the Board for approval; and, Mid May - County purchases development
rights on properties.
The following recommendations are provided for action by the Board: 1) approve the final
applicant ranking priority list - ACE applications for year 2001-02, and, 2) order appraisals for the top seven
ranked properties.
(Ms. Thomas said she thinks it is wonderful that there continues to be applicants for this program.
The Board was concerned at the beginning as to whether people would even be interested in the program.
Actually, the first year of the program is not yet complete, but she thinks that the Board will be able to brag
soon that is has saved five real family farms. The program is bringing forth the people who the Board had
hoped would apply, the people who are trying to hang on and farm their land. The action today is to agree
with the Committees priority ranking. She believes the system was devised in such a way that it allows this
=
ranking, and it came out with a useable product.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved of the final applicant ranking
priority list for the ACE program for year 2001-02, and ordered appraisals for the top seven ranked
properties.
__________
Item 6.9. Update on Monticello Fire/Rescue Station.
The following report was received by the Board. Attached to the staff report was a memorandum
from Ron Lilley, Project Manager, revised date November 30, 2001, giving a project budget update. He
notes that the bids came in only slightly higher than currently budgeted. He said that in designing the
project, staff also considered the much larger tract of County property surrounding the site and its future
use. As a result, the bids include planning for use of the entire site including changes in the grade of the
road, the elevation of the building, and additional rock removal to accommodate the changed elevation.
These changes will allow future County projects to proceed without extensive roadwork and cut and fill.
The cost of road and site work increased by $445,000, but this investment will result in $521,000 in savings
for future development of the property.
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
The report notes that in addition to site and road issues, staff recommends several upgrades to the
building to improve energy efficiency and durability. While the bids for the building are six percent higher
($104,000) than originally planned, approximately one-half of this cost will result in energy efficiency,
durability and operational improvements. Each of these changes should result in operational cost savings
once the facility is open. The remainder of the increase (approximately $50,000) is required to
accommodate ADA and other building code requirements which were not originally anticipated. Even with
these changes, the total cost of construction will be $121 per square foot which is below the square foot
cost of other localities who have recently constructed similar facilities.
Because this project has been planned for several years and due to remaining balances from other
projects previously completed, sufficient funds are currently available to proceed with the total bid.
Assuming approval of these additional investments, the station budget will need to be amended by
$100,300 (copy of revised budget on file). The amended budget will reflect only the changes in the cost of
the Fire/Rescue Station. The additional costs associated with future land development will be identified
separately in the CIP. Staff requests approval of the amended budget. No additional appropriation will be
necessary.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the updated Project Budget of
November 30, 2001, for the Monticello Fire Station, in the amount of $2,747,000.
__________
Item 6.10. Copy of Tentative Virginia Transportation Development Plan (formerly known as the
A@
Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program) was received for information from Charles D.
Nottingham, Commissioner, Department of Transportation, dated November 13, 2001. Mr. Nottingham
notes that this plan is noticeably different from previous formats and is divided into two sections a
C
Feasibility phase and a Capital Improvement phase. The new format is a direct result of input to the
Governors Commission on Transportation Policy requesting a simplified format of the plan. The secondary
=
roads plan is scheduled to receive final approval at the December 20 CTB meeting. The Board may
comment on the plan at a Final Allocation Hearing scheduled for December 6 in Richmond.
(Ms. Humphris asked that this item be discussed under Agenda Item No. 7.)
__________
Item 6.11. Notice of public hearing, re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0025518, Moores
Creek STP, was received as information from Norma C. Job, Environmental Engineer, Department of
Environmental Quality. It was noted that on the basis of preliminary review and application of lawful
standards and regulations, the State Water Control Board proposes to modify the permit subject to certain
conditions. This proposed permit action is tentative and consists of removing the zinc limit and all
associated requirements and reducing the chlorine monitoring frequency.
(Ms. Humphris said she gets frustrated by the way these things are handled by the State. They
intend to reissue this permit changing it to allow removal of the zinc limit, and all associated requirements,
and reducing the chlorine monitoring frequency. She feels that when the State announces they are going
to do this, they should also state why they are doing it because that has a lot to do with whether someone
wants to attend the public hearing, or write a letter. She does not think the DEQ treats the public fairly when
they do not state their rationale for doing this.
Mr. Tucker said that the Water Resources Manager has indicated that these are routine notices,
and that he lets the Board know of any item that may require comment from the Board.)
__________
Item 6.12. Copy of 2001 Third Quarter Building Report, as prepared by the Department of
Planning and Community Development, was received for information.
(Ms. Thomas said she just had an interesting two days as a guest of Baltimore County, Maryland,
which surrounds Baltimore City. They also have a growth area and an area where they do not want any
development to take place. They have about 90 percent of their growth occurring in the area where they do
want growth, and only 10 percent in the rural area. This county has almost ten times as many people as
those in Albemarle County, and is of a smaller area.
Ms. Humphris asked how long they have been working on this. Ms. Thomas said about the same
length of time as Albemarle. Albemarles big down zoning occurred in 1980, while theirs occurred in 1979.
=
They also do not extend water and sewer into areas outside of the growth areas, and they have the same
problems with failed septic systems. They made their own problem by having one-acre zoning in the rural
areas. Albemarle has two-acre zoning so at least has a chance of getting an alternative septic field. She
said it was interesting to see that other people are struggling with the same problems. She said that 59
percent of Albemarles development is taking place within the designated development areas. She
=
appreciates getting this report from the Planning Office every quarter.)
__________
Item 6.13. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for October 9, October 16 and October 23,
2001, were received for information.
__________
Item 6.14. Copy of letter dated November 20, 2001, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Administration, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels: Tax Map 121, Parcel 70
(property of Floyd E. Johnson Estate), Section 10.3.1, was received as information.
__________
Item 6.15. Charlottesville VDOT Residency Monthly Report, December 2001, was received for
information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters.
Mr. Chuck Proctor, Assistant Resident Engineer, was present.
He said VDOT continues to work on gravel roads, and hopes to have maintenance completed soon
after resolving some equipment problems.
__________
The bridge on Route 29 over the South Fork Rivanna River is now open to traffic in both directions.
All lanes are open.
__________
The Meadow Creek Parkway project is on the agenda of the Commonwealth Transportation Board
this month.
__________
He said there are some questions about the Six-Year Plan this year. He recently attended a
training conference where moving from sequentially-developing projects to concurrent engineering of
projects was discussed. That would put more emphasis on design during the feasibility phase of a project
to define the scope, location of the road, and what VDOT will do to try and limit the amount of overruns on
projects currently. That is the reason for the new formula. VDOT will look at the project during the
feasibility phase, and then put that project into a capital outlay plan which is a truer plan, so the project will
be built in a timely manner.
Ms. Thomas asked where the Countys share of the cost of the Meadow Creek Parkway appears.
=
It is not shown in the Plan, and yet it will be approved by the CTB. Mr. Proctor said the project is probably
still in the feasibility stage. It is still being studied. Ms. Humphris said the Citys portion of the Meadow
=
Creek Parkway is shown, but the Countys portion is not shown. Mr. Proctor said he will have to look into
=
the report. He knows it is in the Secondary Six-Year Plan.
__________
Mr. Martin said he has had many calls from people on Route 746 (Foster Branch Road) and Route
807 in the Stony Point area. Both roads are in need of maintenance to the roadbed and the culverts.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said Carter's Bridge on Route 20 South will be replaced in the next couple of years. It
has been decided that it has not been properly named, so he drew up a resolution for an upcoming Board
meeting. Even though the bridge has been in existence since the 1700s, formal action is needed to name
the bridge.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said the entrance to the town of Scottsville has a problem with right-of-way because
there are three houses which are possibly located in VDOTs right-of-way. At this time, the town has a
=
contract with Bokard & Associates to examine the right-of-way coming into town; they will be doing the
streetscape project. He asked if there could be some coordination between the VDOT right-of-way section
and the consultants. Mr. Proctor said he has seen preliminary plans for this area, but he does not think the
rights-of-way were ever obtained because the project was not undertaken. He will look into the matter
further.
__________
Ms. Thomas said there is a lot of traffic over Dry Bridge on Dry Bridge Road, and it has potholes
which need attention.
__________
Ms. Humphris said VDOT did not install warning signs for the recent construction on Barracks Road
near Montvue. Mr. Proctor said he will look into the matter.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board would like to discuss Consent Item No. 6.10, Copy of Tentative
Virginia Transportation Department Plan, at this time.
Ms. Humphris said she would begin the conversation. She sent an E-mail to the Board members
and the MPO about this situation, and she has talked to Mr. Jim Bryan. She said the Board received a letter
from Mr. Nottingham saying the format for the plan has been changed as a direct result of input given to the
Governors Commission on Transportation Policy requesting a simplified format of the plan. She thought
=
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
the Board had just gotten a format which was understandable and complete, and clear. If the public said
they wanted a simplified format, they did not mean they wanted one without information. This format leaves
out most of the pertinent information (there is no timeline, no dollars for preliminary engineering, right-of-
way, construction, there is no information on what is STP or NHS, it does not show the previous year
allocations or the projected allocation). She realized what was not shown after her husband called the
Highway Department asking for a copy of the Six-Year Plan. After a couple of weeks when his copy had
not been received, he called again and was told copies would not be mailed this year, the information was
available on the Internet. He found only the abbreviated document on the Internet. When he called again,
he was told there would be a complete copy available at the local library, the Residency Office, the
Culpeper Office, or the MPO. None of those places had a copy. After making another call, he was told it
was on the VDOT Intranet, but that cannot be accessed by the public.
Ms. Humphris said when the MPO person was trying to put together the plan for the MPO, he was
able to get from Wayne Woodcock in Richmond a link to the Intranet which he was never able to use, but
he did somehow get the information. However, he had to pick and choose information to plug into the
document that the MPO has to deal with next Monday. This change in the format of the report is actually
making the whole Transportation Plan a secret from the public. Mr. Proctor said he will look into it. He got
Ms. Humphris E-mail the other day, and talked with his Contract Administrator who basically agreed with
=
Ms. Humphris. He said this report actually does not give the Residency Office any information.
Ms. Humphris said VDOT people told her they cannot do their job without the usual information,
and citizens cannot do anything without the information. She does not understand what Mr. Nottingham
had in mind when he said a simplified format had been requested. Mr. Proctor said from a meeting he
attended yesterday it is his understanding that for Capital Outlays the report should go back to the normal
format. During the feasibility stage where the project goes to the Capital Outlay plan, there will be no time
lines. That is where the preliminary design and scoping will take place. Ms. Humphris said that at the
Capital Outlay stage is where there should be time lines for construction. She asked that Mr. Proctor talk
with Mr. Ron Nichols at the MPO about the information he pulled from the Intranet.
Ms. Thomas said the report does not seem to connect with what has been requested. She was
puzzled as to where some of the items came from. She asked that staff review this to see if it responds to
what the Board has been asking for at Preallocation Hearings. It does not seem to meet the needs which
have been identified. There were some specific things like Union Station and Rugby Road bike lanes which
are actually in Charlottesville, not Albemarle (#13775 and #16085). The historic Court Square is owned by
Albemarle, but is not actually located in Albemarle County (#52019). Mr. Tucker said the Court Square is
one area which was never annexed, so it is located in Albemarle County.
Ms. Humphris said even though Court Square is owned by Albemarle, that funding goes to
Charlottesville. Mr. Tucker said he does not know how that works.
Ms. Humphris said Meade Avenue not Meade Street (#56605 on page 7 of the CIP) should be
listed in Charlottesville. Also, on page 2 of the capital improvement program, for the Route 20 North project
(#60395) from Route 250 to Route 600, widening, paving and shoulders, she thought there was to be a
sidewalk included in that project. All agreed that the reference to Route 600 was incorrect. Mr. Cilimberg
said Route 20 from Route 250 northward is to have sidewalks. He is not sure what project this plan is
referencing.
Ms. Humphris asked what UPC numbers are. The Board has never dealt with UPC numbers
A@
before. Mr. Proctor said that is a generic code used by VDOT to track projects. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is
reviewing this report to try and find mistakes.
Ms. Thomas said the Board should probably not take anymore time on this report today. Since
staff is working on it, the Board members can share any notes they have with staff.
Mr. Dorrier asked what money is specifically allocated in the Six-Year Plan for bike paths and
walking paths. Mr. Proctor said those kinds of things are usually incorporated as part of a project. They
don't have separate funds set aside for those things. Mr. Cilimberg said staff tells VDOT during the design
work on roads if they have been identified for sidewalks and bike lanes.
Mr. Dorrier said in the five-mile radius around the town of Scottsville people walk on roads without
any walking paths or bike paths. Mr. Cilimberg said those are rural roads which do not get bike lanes or
sidewalks or walking paths due to right-of-way constraints.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there are any planning recommendations for dealing with those situations. He
is thinking specifically about Avon Street Extended from the Jail to the City. Mr. Cilimberg said there is a
separate CIP project for bike lanes along Avon Street, as there is for Route 20 from Route 250 northward.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Board should look at the whole situation in Albemarle County as to bike paths.
Mr. Cilimberg said resources would be necessary to do that. He said there are over 690 square miles
outside of the urban area. When improvements are done the best that could be done is to pave the
shoulders of the roads. Rights-of-way are so restricted that this would prohibit putting in bike lanes and
sidewalks.
Ms. Humphris said the County has a Bike Plan and a Sidewalk Plan in place. Mr. Bowerman said
those plans dont extend to the rural areas because the Comprehensive Plan recognizes that the rural
=
areas are different from the urban areas.
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Ms. Thomas said the County joined with others in the Planning District for a study of rural
transportation. In the rural area there is a conflict between large trucks carrying lumber or hay bales and
bicyclists, walkers and automobiles. When you have all of these things on narrow rural roads, something
has to give. The different types of traffic scare people and the first thing they want to do is get the bicyclists
off of the road.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said another issue has to do with the bike races in the Woodridge area and the
Scottsville area. When these bike races occur, it causes problems in the neighborhood. He said there
needs to be some planning and some coordination within the community. He is thinking that the County
might need some policy dealing with the issue. Mr. Tucker said that is left up to the race coordinator to
notify all of the property owners along the race route. They then work with VDOT and the police to block off
the road for a certain period of time. Somebody has evidently dropped the ball. He will check to be sure
A@
there is a process that the organizers adhere to.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the City has a project proposed off of Rio Road on property which was their old
water treatment plant grounds. It was suggested that this intersection might need a signal light, and if it is
regarded as a problem area the funding might be less than expected. He asked if staff has an answer to
this question yet. Mr. Bowerman said there is a turn lane and taper involved, and the City does not have the
right-of-way needed. Mr. Benish said VDOT has to say whether the intersection meets their standards for
signalization. A signal without left-turn lanes will not improve the situation because someone turning left
would block southbound traffic until there was a free flow. Mr. Bowerman said this situation has a direct
connection to the Meadow Creek project. Mr. Benish said that after Meadow Creek Parkway is built, this
project may be feasible, but with the 20,000+ vtpd on Rio Road now, a signal without a left-turn lane would
not work.
__________
Mr. Bowerman asked the status of the study for a possible connector road between the Meadow
Creek Parkway and Route 20. Ms. Humphris said CHART (a subcommittee of the MPO) is examining that
issue but will not be making a report to the MPO for a long time, possibly not for a year.
Mr. Bowerman said he asks about that because part of the Citys thinking about their portion of the
=
Meadow Creek Parkway may be tied into the feasibility of that connection. If a report as to the feasibility of
that connection were received in a timely fashion, it might keep the project on track in the City. If there is
anyway to expedite the study of that option, he believes it would be prudent to do so.
Mr. Martin asked to which study Mr. Bowerman was referring. Mr. Bowerman said it is a study of a
two-lane connector between the parks connecting Route 20 off of Meadow Creek Parkway to take the
10,000 vtpd off of Free Bridge. That is a major concern of the City in terms of getting traffic to the Route
250 Bypass at McIntire. There cant be anymore improvements at Free Bridge because of the limitation of
=
the Route 250 Bypass near the school. There has to be something else, or the road will become more
impossible to use. Part of the concern of some members of City Council can be dealt with if there is an
alternative which would take some of the pressure off of the Route 250 Bypass. It might make their phase
of the Meadow Creek Parkway a more certain, viable portion of the whole project.
Ms. Thomas said from the traffic counts of the Eastern Planning Initiative it did not appear to be as
bad a situation on Free Bridge as had been presumed. The consultants decided that was probably a glitch
in the data, but they were not charged with correcting that glitch.
Mr. Bowerman asked if CHART is working with the MPO. Ms. Thomas said CHART is a
subcommittee of the MPO. Mr. Bowerman said he would then ask that Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris
check the status of that issue. Ms. Humphris said that even if CHART decided within the year that the road
is feasible, realistically there is no funding available because it would have to be a secondary road.
Mr. Bowerman said this idea was dropped from the CATS Plan because a four-lane road is not
possible. He thinks there is a need to know if a two-lane road is possible because it has a direct impact on
the Citys position concerning the Meadow Creek Parkway even if it is seven or more years off in the future.
=
Ms. Humphris said it would probably be more like 27 years into the future. There is no money. The
Southern Parkway, given the development scenario, would have precedence for funding over an Eastern
Connector. She said the City representatives on the MPO know there is no money available, because Mr.
Kevin Lynch had wanted to use City urban funds to help the County build the Southern Parkway since it
would help traffic in the City tremendously. Mr. Cilimberg said the real problem is that there is not enough
money in any of the sources. Mr. Bowerman said he would still like to know if it is feasible.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Family Support Program Evaluation Project, Update on.
Ms. Kathy Ralston said that in 1998 the Department of Social Services began to pilot an early
intervention program funded with Title IV-E Federal dollars. The Family Support Program provided social
workers in each of the County's 15 elementary schools to work with children who were at risk of abuse and
neglect and thus out of home placement. At the time of implementation of the program, the Board
requested that the Department conduct an evaluation of the program in order to determine its impact on
children and families. The Department contracted with the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Policy to do
the evaluation and they recommended utilizing the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia.
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Dr. Bruce Gansneder was selected as the Principal Investigator for the evaluation. A Steering Committee
and Advisory Board were created to guide the process. They now have information on the first two phases
of the evaluation. The first phase of the process was an internal examination of information gathering
procedures and a review of the literature on existing programs and evaluations nationwide. Additionally, a
computer database was developed in order to collect information in a standard way. The second phase
has provided information on referral sources, client family characteristics, social worker interventions and
family stress/concerns. (Note: At 10:08 a.m., Mr. Bowerman left the room. He returned at 10:14 a.m.)
Ms. Ralston introduced Dr. Bruce Gansneder, Principal Investigator, Ms. Jennifer Nielsen, Project
Coordinator, Ms. Charity Haines, Program Coordinator for the Bright Stars Program, Dr. Diane Behrens,
member of the Steering Committee, Ms. Donna Marshall, DSS Advisory Board member, Michael Holmes
and Debbie Chlebnikow, Senior Family Support Workers who are members of the Steering Committee,
Michael McHale and Becky Clarish, Interns from VCU, and Nancy Gansneder with the Weldon Cooper
Center.
Ms. Ralston said this is not a one-time event. They hope this will be a continuous improvement
event. What will be discussed today are the first two phases of this evaluation process. The first phase has
been completed. The research assistants did a review of the literature on family support programs
nationwide. They also did internal information gathering. Finally, through their guidance, a searchable,
archived computer database was developed for the program. This was done by the Countys Information
=
Services Department with Mr. Bryan Betts being the contact person. That was not up and running until July,
2001. Dr. Gansneder impressed on them the need to have a standard way of collecting data if there is to
be reliable information.
Ms. Ralston said Phase II will be discussed today, i.e, the referral information, client family
characteristics, family support interventions, and family stress/concerns. They completed the Fall 2001
evaluation time line. For Winter, 2002, they will focus on student school records data and a review of the
case files. In the Spring of 2002, they will go back and look at all of this data and do both a parent survey
and a school staff survey.
Ms. Ralston referred the Board to the written report (on file) for statistics regarding the program.
The information contained therein is on 93 families with 137 children. When all of the data for this group is
completed, there will be data on 146 families with 211 children. After explaining all of the statistics she said
the Steering Committee and staff will continue to build and modify the data base, they will compare
available data from the previous year, they will then proceed to Phases III and IV of the process, and will
maintain communication with the Advisory Board and obtain their feedback.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the 93 families is only a sampling, and not the total population. Ms. Ralston
said it is a sampling, but they will be looking at the total population once everything is in the data base.
Ms. Charity Haines, Family Support Program Coordinator, then described two typical families the
staff is working with. She said this was a referral of a third grade child by a teacher. The teacher noted that
the child had trouble getting along with her peers and had some emotional problems in the classroom. The
teacher surmised that there was a problem with the parent being able to handle the parenting task. The
family support worker made contact with the family, a single mother who had only a tenth grade education.
She was employed in a job which allowed her to support her child. However, she found it hard to manage
the child. The family support worker suggested that there be a meeting at school to discuss issues both at
home and at school. When the mother came to the initial meeting, she was non-communicative, but
eventually discussed her problem. This group of people helped develop a plan to help this mother, and
after being a part of the program for almost a year, this childs behavior has improved. This was a high risk
=
family. There was substance abuse in the family, and alcohol problems. There had been previous CPS
involvement with the family, and there was a lot of work to be done.
Ms. Haines said the second family was a single father with five children. These people were new to
this area, moving here when a change in financial circumstances resulted in them losing their home. The
father is trying hard to keep the family together. They have moved in with his mother in a small trailer. The
children were referred by a teacher who realized that the children were not coming to school ready to learn.
They did not attend, did not do their homework, messages did not get back and forth from home to school.
The family support worker went out and met with the father and the grandmother and learned that there
had been problems for many years, but they had never had on-going services to help them deal with the
problems. The father had a tenth grade education, but had a solid employment history. He just needed to
find work in this area which would allow him to earn a living, and also parent his children. The family
support worker has been working on basic needs, food, clothing, housing and employment. At the same
time, she is working on connecting that father with the school so that messages are getting read and acted
upon. The father is coming in for school meetings with the three children who are in elementary school.
There are two younger children who have been referred to the CHIP Program so they can have home
visiting nurse services. It has only been four months so she cannot report that a lot of progress has been
made. They do see that this family has been connected to a service which will enable them to get what
they need to meet basic needs. This was a family at high risk, and CPS had been used in the past. There
were also some domestic violence issues in the family.
Dr. Bruce Gansneder said this has been a true collaborative effort with University people, Family
Support people, and family support workers with Albemarle schools. He said that basically this is just a set
of files containing all kinds of information about people. He said that the data collection and review is
cumbersome. Last year they extracted information from those files about the people in the program in
1999; 185 families. It took hundreds of hours to extract that information and put it into a computer base and
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
then do an analysis. He said it was clear to him early on that it made a great deal of sense to try and move
past that. From his knowledge of these programs around the country, he cannot find a data base like the
one they have begun to set up. Shortly, it will be used to extract information almost instantane-ously and
make multiple passes at the information. They will be doing some new paper data collection this year.
That will continue to be modified. He said that during the winter months and into the spring they will
continue the focus they have, but will shift the focus to be more on school-related factors; school behavior
of children, family contacts with the school, as well as continue all the things they have been doing. It will
also allow them to look at changes across time that occur either in the children or the families to get a
sense of outcomes. Hopefully, they will be able to make a report to the Board in July about that new data.
Mr. Dorrier said there is a growing need for mental health treatment for children nationwide. Risk
factors including mental health problems have been mentioned. He knows the survey deals with services,
so he would like to know if the County has a system set up to provide mental health counseling to young
children and families. It is noted in the report that 77 percent of families receive services related to family
relationships. He asked if mental health is involved in these services. Ms. Ralston said that is exactly what
some of that would be, but services for children and families is bleak in this community and across the state
of Virginia due to funding cuts. They have a very hard time accessing mental health services for families
and children, particularly for inpatients. Most of the children are transported to Richmond and other places
at $300 to $400 a day for inpatient psychiatric care because there is not anything available in the
community. The state did run the old DeJarnette Hospital in Staunton, which was the only option for
adolescents in this area. There was always a waiting list. If that facility is used now, funds must come from
CSA.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this Board might be a catalyst in dealing with the issues of mental health
treatment for young people and families. After September 11 people are more concerned about what will
happen in the future. He wonders if all might join forces and recommend something to the state for the
community. Ms. Ralston said they would be glad to work with the Board on that idea.
Mr. Bowerman said this is clearly a very labor intensive service. He asked what part is state funded
and what part is local funding. Ms. Ralston said there are virtually no local funds in this program. This was
a program which the Department was able to access Federal dollars for, Title IV-E of the Social Security
Act. Prior to this, Virginia had not accessed those dollars. Commissioner Clarence Carter asked why those
Federal dollars were not being used. Albemarle and Hampton were the first localities to access those
dollars.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a grant had to be written to receive those dollars. Ms. Ralston said it is not a
grant, she had to write a plan. Part of the reason Albemarle was chosen was that the Department already
had a strategic plan in place for prevention services. The County funded a position many years ago at
Greer Elementary for a family support worker. It was actually Debbie Chlebnikows position, and she did
=
such a good job, that her position was used as the basis for the design of the program. There are no local
dollars in the program. The way this is done is very complex, and there are community partners involved.
Some of those community partners are in the juvenile justice side of the house. They use local dollars that
the Board allocates to programs as match for these Federal dollars. If the dollars the Board is already
allocating meet the definition of the IV-E Program, then they can say they will use those dollars as a match
to bring in these Federal dollars. The Department has been very creative in doing this. The mental health
folks have administrative costs and they have case management costs. Those costs can be extracted and
then matched with Federal dollars. She said that Ms. Roxanne White understands all of this which is a
great resource to the County. The Board could fund programs in the juvenile justice side of the house that
the Department could then match with Federal dollars to bring more funds in for juvenile justice services.
There are lots of ways to do that. They are now looking at an opportunity to use some of the funds the
Board provides to the Court to see if some of those moneys can be used to bring in Federal dollars. They
are trying to be very creative.
Ms. Thomas said she wanted to be assured that the data collection and the evaluation were not
getting in the way of what they were doing. Ms. Ralston said the family support workers would say yes it is
A@
getting in the way. Ms. Thomas asked if Ms. Ralston was making sure that one thing did not overwhelm the
other. She wants to be sure too much emphasis is not being put on gathering data.
Dr. Gansneder said that from this time forward, there should be minimum time needed. A system
is being built which will minimize the time required to input information so the system is not a monster.
A@
Mr. Dorrier said the Board is meeting with its state Legislators next week. He suggested that the
Board meet with the Task Force dealing with this problem and come up with some recommendations for
the legislators. He said it might be possible to develop a local plan also.
Ms. Thomas said there was a meeting yesterday where she represented this Board, even though
she was a member of the audience. The local, elected state legislators knew the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors were present and are interested in childrens issues. She said there were questions along
=
these lines asked, and the legislators were asked to give answers.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this group has actually proposed legislative recommendations for the coming
year. Ms. Ralston said this group would not do that. A likely group to do that would be the Virginia League
of Social Service Executives because the money is passed through the departments of social services all
around the State. She said they have been in touch with legislators about the importance of maintaining
general fund dollars for programs like Healthy Families and the Child Health Partnership because they
A@A@
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
can use those general fund dollars to draw down Federal dollars. She said this past year it was mentioned
that the General Assembly was going to supplant those general fund dollars with TANF Federal dollars. If
they did that, then the department could not maximize those dollars. She said they were able to stifle that
move. There are some efforts going on around the State to make sure the legislators know about this.
Ms. Thomas thanked everyone present for the presentation concerning this program this morning.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on An Ordinance to amend Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of the
Albemarle County Code by amending Article I, In General, to authorize the creation of Junior Firefighter
programs by volunteer fire companies. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress
on November 19 and November 26, 2001.)
Mr. Tucker said this ordinance was discussed in June by the Fire/Rescue Advisory Board (FRAB).
State law requires that the Board adopt an ordinance authorizing the establishment of this program.
Adoption of an ordinance strictly following State Code allows candidates 16 to 18 years old to fully
participate in all activities of the volunteer company as long as they have parental consent and have
attained Firefighter I certification. Adoption of the ordinance in its current form would not prohibit each
individual station from establishing limits on activities of the junior firefighters. The draft ordinance was
reviewed, accepted and passed by a unanimous vote at the October 24 meeting of the FRAB. However,
FRAB membership believes that some limits should be established system wide and will develop a policy
to be implemented by all County fire/rescue agencies to establish such limits. Staff recommends adoption
of the ordinance subsequent to holding the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Fred Huckstep said he is Chief of the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company and a member of the
Fire/Rescue Advisory Board. He said there are presently junior firefighter programs in place in most of the
County fire departments. The Virginia Code allows youths 16 to 17 years old to fully participate provided
they have attained Firefighter I Certification, have parent/guardian consent, and the locality has adopted an
ordinance authorizing such. The Advisory Board is asking this Board to adopt that ordinance. He said
Earlysville has one of the strongest junior firefighter programs in the County at this time. They have found
that the junior members are an excellent part of recruitment/retention activities. The Advisory Board is
working on some restrictions county-wide because it recognizes that the various departments need an
equal playing field.
A@
Mr. Gary Grant said he lives in the Earlsville area. His son Alex, who is 16, has been a junior
member of the Earlysville Fire Department for the past 19 months. He said the people his son has worked
with for these months have been extremely fine role models. His son worked with and was trained by the
Countys paid firefighters last summer, both men and women. He endorses adoption of the ordinance. He
=
hopes the FRAB will embrace the idea of making these programs more known to ethnic minority students,
to females and kids from less affluent families. Perhaps, the program could go out to troubled youth as
well, so they could be influenced by the leadership from these volunteer and paid firefighters. He hopes the
program does not become over regulated. He also hopes there could be a representative from the juniors
on the Advisory Board.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowerman said the ordinance was discussed by the Fire Chiefs at the October meeting of the
FRAB and he is comfortable with the way the different chiefs looked at the program. He does not believe
the program will be over regulated. It just enables the County to have the program. The stations are aware
that the abilities of the junior firefighters need to be consistent so that when they are on a fire scene with a
different company, the officers know what they are capable of doing. That was discussed at length, and he
is comfortable that they are aware of this. He supports the ordinance and offered motion to adopt An
Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Article I, in General, of Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of the Code of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, by adding Section 6-102, Junior Firefighter Programs.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
ORDINANCE NO. 01-6(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, OF
CHAPTER 6, FIRE PROTECTION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Article I, In General, of Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of the Code of the County
of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by adding a new Section
6-102 (Junior Firefighter Programs), as follows:
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
CHAPTER 6. FIRE PROTECTION
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 6-102 Junior Firefighter Programs.
Persons sixteen years of age or older are authorized to participate in a volunteer
fire company duly authorized to operate within the County of Albemarle under the
following conditions.
Any person sixteen years of age or older may work with or participate fully in all
activities of a voluntary fire company, provided that, if such person is less than eighteen
years of age, such person shall first:
A. Supply to the chief fire officer of the volunteer fire company written
confirmation that such person has parental or guardian approval; and
B. Attain certification under National Fire Protection Association 1001, level one,
firefighter standards as administered by the Department of Fire Programs.
(Ord. 01-6(2), 12-05-01)
State law reference -- Virginia Code 40.1-79.1.
'
This ordinance shall be effective upon passage.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked how many hours of training are required to be a Firefighter I. Mr. Huckstep said it
is approximately 100 hours. One of the things they have done the past three summers in conjunction with
the career firefighters who are in three of the stations now, is to hold a Junior Firefighter Academy. It is a
week long, about 40 hours of intense training. The Department of Fire Programs, which is the state
department which oversees a lot of training, just wrote an article about the Academy.
Mr. Dorrier asked if females participate in the program. Mr. Huckstep said yes. Mr. Dorrier asked
A@
how many were involved in the Academy. Mr. Huckstep said almost 50 percent of the junior members are
female.
_______________
(Note: Because of time constraints, the Board skipped Agenda Item No. 10 temporarily.)
Agenda Item No. 11. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Mr. Madison Cummings, School Board member, was present to make the presentation. He said
that Mr. Steve Koleszar has been appointed as Central Region Chairman of the Virginia School Boards
Association.
Mr. Cummings said the School Board has discussed at some length their Equity Education Policy
regarding sexual orientation.
Mr. Cummings said that under their Anti-Discrimination language the School Board has continued
discussion of the addition of sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination policies. There are possibly five
A@
policies where this language would apply. The School Board asked staff to develop policy language which
would add sexual orientation to policies that impact students, particularly harassment and discipline. They
A@
intend to take action on these changes on December 13. Legal counsel has advised the School Board that
the changes under consideration are all legally enforceable.
Mr. Cummings said the Capital Improvements Program for FY 2002-03/2006-07 was discussed in
October. The CIP was been prepared to reflect the recommendations of the Long-Range Planning
Committee, enrollment changes and current needs. On November 29 the School Board discussed and
took public input concerning the addition of an auditorium at Monticello High School. Three options
concerning this recommendation will be discussed on December 13.
Mr. Cummings said on November 20, School Board members Charles Ward, Diantha McKeel,
Madison Cummings, and Assistant Superintendent Frank Morgan, all attended the presentation of the
JLARC report. The report shows that the State is inadequately funding education. The promise of funding
55 percent has not been met for many years. Mr. Martin said it would have been good if they had admitted
it five years ago when there was funding available. Mr. Cummings said there are several glaring problems
mentioned in the report.
Mr. Cummings said the School Board has received both volumes of the
2001 Annual Progress
. It is full of information. Volume 1 addresses the progress of the division toward meeting the School
Report
Boards goals and priorities. Volume 2 includes more in-depth information regarding individual schools,
=
SOLs, and all the other issues. He said the community owes a debt of thanks to Kevin Hughes and his staff
because he is extremely knowledgeable in the collection, correlation and distribution of data.
Mr. Cummings said the State Board of Education lowered the minimum passing scores on History
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
SOL tests, fifth-grade and eighth-grade World History and United States History. He said that in Albemarle
County both United States History and World History II are taken in high school. He said the new passing
scores bring the History scores more in line with the passing scores already identified for other subjects.
Mr. Cummings said that tomorrow night the School Board will hold a special meeting to review its
progress toward meeting the School Board/Superintendent Priorities, the ,
2001 Annual Progress Report
and the reorganization of the Human Resources Department. At that time, if the Board deems them to be
necessary, adjustments could be made. He then offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said she appreciates the work that Albemarle County did to help JLARC reach its
conclusions. Mr. Cummings said JLARC has the pertinent information before them. The School Board
realizes that it will be a difficult budget year, and probably a difficult budget biennium.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Albemarle County is ahead of the rest of the state for the SOLs. Mr. Cummings
said the School Division is ahead of most of the state. They have a very high desire to have all of the
schools meet the SOL by the end of the next fiscal year. He said people are working extremely hard, and
he thanks them for that work.
Mr. Martin said he received a call from Amanda Green from the Observer who asked him what he
sees as future issues. He told her that one issue will come about when high school students make 1100 on
the SATs, pass all their grades, but dont pass the SOLs. He wonders what will happen then, and what will
=
happen when whole school districts never make the standards. Mr. Cummings said that has been
discussed in the news media lately. He said adjustments have been made over the last four years, so he
thinks more adjustments will be made as to scores and tests. Changing to SAT type questions has been
discussed also. It is one of those things that is evolving.
Mr. Dorrier said with a new Governor in office next year, does Mr. Cummings foresee a change in
the Department of Education. Mr. Cummings said with any new administration in office there is the
possibility of looking at things in a different way, and he hopes that will be the case. He said it is always
possible they will look at the tax codes and the D rule, but he doubts it.
A@
Mr. Cummings said he would like to thank this Board of Supervisors and previous Boards who have
contributed to purchase of buses, buildings and budgets. He is grateful for the work that has been done
together. He said both groups value Albemarle County and public schools. He is a committed advocate of
public education, and will continue to be even though retired as a School Board member. He thinks the
most important job of a society is the education of its children.
Ms. Thomas said she is proud of appointing Mr. Cummings as a member of the School Board.
She is sorry to see him go off of the Board. She has appreciated his strong advocacy, and she knows there
is another strong advocate taking his seat, but not taking his place.
Mr. Dorrier said there are a lot of other boards Mr. Cummings might consider serving on. Mr.
Cummings said he is interested in serving on the Commission on Children and Families. He might get
together a group and go to Richmond and talked to the legislators. He thinks it is time to step up and take a
stand. He also wants to work on the Lewis and Clark Commission.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Police Department Citizen Advisory Committee (PDCAC), Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said the County Executive and the Chief of Police have discussed with Board members
their desire to enhance Police Department operations by seeking citizen review of police policies and
procedures to address any identified public concerns. The State Code authorizes local governing bodies to
establish citizen advisory committees necessary to address any matter of concern to a locality. The Police
Department Citizen Advisory Committee (PDCAC) would have several duties: to review policies, programs,
procedures, practices, budgets and staffing priorities of the Police Department upon a request by the Board,
County Executive or Chief of Police, or in response to a citizen complaint and to provide input and
recommendations to the Chief of Police. It is proposed to consist of three citizen members appointed by
the Board, an ex-officio member of the Board acting as a liaison between the PDCAC and the Board. The
duties of the PDCAC and the responsibilities of the Chief of Police in regard to it are set forth in the draft by-
laws.
Mr. Tucker said the PDCAC would be a public body with all meetings and documents of the
committee being open to the public. It is not authorized under State law to possess or review records which
are to remain confidential, such as records related to on-going criminal investigations, internal
administrative investigations and specific personnel matters. Therefore, its policy reviews would be limited
to those matters not requiring review of records deemed necessary to remain confidential. It is envisioned
that the PDCAC would be appointed and begin its work early in 2002. The initial meeting of the PDCAC
would be to prioritize its agenda and work plan with the Chief of Police. Staff recommends that the Board
approve the creation of the Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee and its proposed By-laws and
then direct the Clerk to advertise to determine those persons interested in serving on the committee.
Mr. Dorrier said if the Committee cannot have access to all information because some of the
records are confidential, will that prevent them from making good recommendations for the department?
Mr. Tucker said he does not think the confidential information is something the chief would use to set forth
work programs or policy decisions. Staff was just trying to make it clear that there are certain areas which
would remain confidential.
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Dorrier asked if rank and file members of the Police Department had any input in this decision.
Do they have a voice in the decision of the committee. Chief John Miller said the rank and file had no input
into this matter. Most of this was created by himself taking into consideration the vast amount of information
across the country of different review boards and advisory committees. He said since they will not get into
personnel matters, it will not affect the rank and file.
Mr. Dorrier said the average patrol person will be affected by the policies produced by this Citizen
Advisory Committee. Chief Miller said when policies are developed, officers do have input into the policies
as they are being developed. At any time, they have the right to make recommendations for policy
changes.
Mr. Dorrier said there is a formal body representing the rank and file now; the Albemarle
Policemans Association. Chief Miller said he does not know how many of his officers belong to that
=
organization. Mr. Dorrier said there is also the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police). He asked if these bodies
will have any standing to make recommendations to the Citizens Advisory Committee. Chief Miller said
no. The rank and file will have to make comments or requests through the chain of command.
A@
Mr. Dorrier said the Committee will be no better than the people who serve on it. He asked if the
Board will be looking for people to serve on this Committee who have had police experience. Chief Miller
said it will depend on who is appointed; they hope the Board will appoint people who have interests and are
active in the community, and people who do not have their own agenda. Mr. Tucker said it would be
helpful, but is not mandatory.
Mr. Dorrier asked how successful these committees have been throughout the country. Chief
Miller said most of them are not too successful, but there is a move across the country to find the right mix
of members for a review board. He thinks all police chiefs see the need for some type of citizen input and
citizen oversight. Within the next several years, he believes that states will require these advisory
committees.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the committee will report to the Board of Supervisors. Chief Miller said there
will be a member of this Board serving in an ex-officio capacity. He thinks that when the Committee gets
together, he assumes the ex-officio will help set up what protocol will be used and report back to the Board
and Mr. Tucker. Mr. Bowerman said the Chief and Mr. Tucker will have the primary responsibility.
Ms. Thomas asked if there has been anyone in the community, or the nation, who has been helpful
while this recommendation was being formulated. Chief Miller said he has about ten inches of materials
from localities across the country, and he has not found anybody who said their program has been
successful. There has been no protocol set up that has not been feared by either the police officers, the
public, or the police chiefs. Most of the material he read established that the review boards which can
actually get into disciplinary actions were a lot easier on police officers than boards within police
departments.
Mr. Bowerman said there is a lot of emphasis to extend the community policing role as a joint
responsibility of the police department and the community. He asked if many of the departments the Chief
reviewed had this as an accent. He sees this as a positive aspect. Chief Miller said for those agencies
which have a philosophy of community policing, it brings people into the agency to review and have some
input into the practices and service levels provided.
Mr. Bowerman said based on what was said earlier about the lack of success of other such
committees throughout the county, he assumes this recommendation has been put together in a way that
gives it a reasonable chance of being a positive contribution. Chief Miller said yes. For the past six years,
A@
the County has operated under the philosophy of community policing. He has looked at ways to bring the
community in to work with the police. Like the Police Foundation, he sees this committee as being able to
review and have input into anything concerning policies, budgets, staffing, programs, etc.
Mr. Dorrier said there has been a Police Foundation for some years. He asked if that has been a
good source of information and a liaison between the citizens and Police Department. Chief Miller said in
some ways it has acted like this proposed committee. But, this committee is more formalized than the
Police Foundation.
Mr. Bowerman said he participated in some of the discussions of this recommendation. He
believes this committee can have a positive role in the community and in the Police Department, as
proposed. He said it is an outgrowth of the community policing philosophy. As set out, it recognizes that
community policing is a joint and shared responsibility between the community and the Police Department.
He is comfortable with the bylaws, and the recommendation of staff. He hopes this Board can agree on
three people to appoint to this committee. He was concerned that Mr. Perkins could not be present today
due to a death in the family. However, Mr. Perkins has not raised any issues concerning this matter, so he
will offer motion to create a Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee, to accept the proposed
bylaws (on file), and to direct the Clerk to advertise after the first of the year for appointees to the
Committee. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Mr. Dorrier said as part of the duties of the committee, he wondered if something could be added
as part of its duties to require that they consider input from the rank and file of the Police Department. Chief
Miller said he would be against that because the rank and file now have an opportunity to have input into
policies and programs.
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Davis said one of the complicating things in developing this program is that by law, the County
Executive and Police Chief are required to operate and run the Police Department under the County
Executive form of government. This Citizen Advisory Committee cannot become a body which runs the
Police Department. Under internal procedures, there is a chain of command and existing avenues
available for police officers to communicate with the chief. This should not supersede that process, which
in a para-military organization requires a chain of command. The Board does not want to set up a body
where people can circumvent the chain of command, and go to a citizen body rather than going through
their police chief and through the Countys chain of command.
=
Mr. Bowerman said this is a very pro-police committee. It allows a group to review the policies the
chief has put into place, and be able to speak to the relevance of those policies in terms of protecting
officers, the rights of the accused, and in all aspects of the police operation. It could potentially lend itself to
creating a better environment for both the police department and the community in terms of
communication.
Mr. Dorrier said he has no question that it will serve a positive aspect of dealing with policing. His
only concern is that the police officers should have some way of making their concerns known. Mr.
Bowerman said they could talk to individual members of this Board and if the Board member thought it was
relevant, they could bring that to the attention of the entire Board. They have that opportunity now.
Ms. Thomas said to purposefully set up a group which finds a way of going around the chain of
command in a police department is not something she would want to be a part of. Ms. Humphris agreed.
Mr. Dorrier said he was not suggesting going around the chain of command. Mr. Bowerman said
there are avenues for any complainant to get their complaint or issue before the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Dorrier said the bylaws look good, but he thinks there needs to be some outlet for policemen on
the force to have input.
Ms. Humphris said this is not the vehicle for that idea. It would be like Mr. Tucker having his
employees coming to the Board of Supervisors with their complaints. She said that is not done in the
organization, and the Chief cannot have his officers trying to solve their grievances outside of the chain of
command. If that wrinkle were put in, it would undo the whole purpose of this idea; it is not workable.
Mr. Bowerman said Chief Miller said that on policy issues the rank and file do have input. He thinks
there is ample opportunity for them to have input. Mr. Dorrier said he agrees; he just raised the question.
Ms. Thomas said if there were no further discussion, the Clerk would call the role. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
(Note: At 11:26 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 11:40 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Midnight Ramble Festival Funding Request (deferred from November 7,
2001).
Ms. White said at the Boards meeting on November 7 it requested more information prior to
=
making a decision. Specific information was requested on 1) the total budget, both proposed revenues and
expenditures; 2) plans for on-going events and funding support; and, 3) a list of advisory committee
members.
Ms. White said the proposed budget for the festival is approximately $343,387.00 which includes
the costs of printing and advertising, equipment and building rentals, celebrities, transportation and lodging
and other miscellaneous expenses. The proposed budget also includes $30,000.00 for four, four-year
scholarships at $2000.00 per student per year (budget states $30,000.00, but the actual cost would be
$32,000.00). The scholarship funds are proposed to be raised solely through ticket sales for the three main
events, a Thursday night opening reception and ball at the Omni, a Friday night dinner dance at Alumni Hall
and a Saturday night dinner dance at the Doubletree Hotel. They hope to net $37,000.00 after expenses
from those three events. These funds will be set aside to provide a four-year scholarship to four selected
students. The scholarship recipients will be chosen prior to the Festival and will be announced at one of the
special functions. As long as the recipients keep up their grade point average, this will have a scholarship
for the four years. Even if the festival were not successful the second year, those students picked the first
year would have their full scholarship.
Ms. White said she does not have a revenue breakdown for how they will collect the remainder of
the revenue to offset the $350,000.00. It is assumed that the other revenues will come from film ticket
sales, donations, advertising revenues, the County and City contributions, and the Tourism Council has
agreed to contribute $900.00.
Ms. White said as to the second question about continuity and the expectation for County funding,
they said the festival will be held in Charlottesville every other year, and if successful, they will take the
show on the road to other cities in the southeastern part of the country. She said the festival spokesperson,
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Agnes White, indicated that the festival hopes to be self-sufficient in the future and not dependent on
County funds.
Ms. White said the third question was to ask for a list of Advisory Board members. She said that list
was attached to the staffs report. The role of the Advisory Board will be to not only review the student's
=
applications and essays, but to personally interview and select the scholarship candidates.
Ms. White said she has listed several options for the Board if they wish to consider providing
one-time funds for the Festival:
1) Fund the total request for $5000.00 from Tourism revenues and require that at least one
scholarship recipient be from Albemarle County. This would insure that one Albemarle student would
receive $8000.00 in scholarship money for a $5000.00 investment.
2) Fund $600.00 from the Tourism Fund and waive the County Office Building rental fees ($276.00)
for the three festival days, for a total contribution of approximately $900.00 which matches the grant from
the Tourism Council.
3) Waive County Office Building rental fees as a contribution, but do not allocate Tourism revenues
until viability of the Festival has been ascertained.
Ms. Humphris said the City has committed $5000.00 in in-kind services, not cash. She thinks that
A@
is significant for the Board to know. Mr. Bowerman asked the nature of the in-kind contribution. Ms.
A@
Humphris said she does not know. Mr. White said that initially it was said that the City was donating
$5000.00, but sometimes the City has other funds they do not consider local city funds which can be used
for different things.
Ms. Thomas said she does not understand how there could be $5000.00 in in-kind services. That
is a very large number. Ms. White said it could be in building rental fees, or transportation costs.
Mr. Dorrier said there is over $100,000.00 in this budget for salaries including stipends to
celebrities. He just wonders if all the money for the salaries and the galas will produce a product which will
be self-supporting.
Mr. Martin said this Board, in the past, has supported festivals which have been successful and
brought in good tourism funds to the community. The Board has supported the Lewis & Clark Festival. The
Board has usually erred on the side of funding something that has already shown its successfulness, but it
is usually the first year when the money is most needed. He suggested going with the second
recommendation, and maybe looking at providing an in-kind contribution.
Ms. Humphris agreed with the second recommendation. Even though it is very modest, it shows an
intent. She just does not think their projections are realistic. With the major festivals, such as the Film
Festival, they have one gala for fund-raising. To have three major events on three succeeding nights, and
anticipate selling 1075 tickets at $150.00 each, to her seems unrealistic. She wishes they could do it, but
finds it unrealistic. The idea is overly ambitious. She thinks the Boards encouragement should be staffs
==
recommendation No. 2. She said this festival will bring in few tourism dollars for Albemarle County.
Ms. Thomas said during the first few years festivals do not bring in outside people. The other
festivals, for the most part, have had some other sponsors. She loves the idea of a scholarship, but with the
Boards questions, she likes recommendation No. 2 which does not demand a scholarship or even expect
=
that there will be a scholarship.
Ms. Humphris then offered motion to accept staffs recommendation No. 2 (Fund $600.00 from the
Tourism Fund and waive the County Office Building rental fees [$276.00] for the three festival days, for a
total contribution of approximately $900.00 which matches the grant from the Tourism Council) with the
understanding that staff will be glad to take another look at it later.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
_______________
(Note: At this time, the Board went back to discuss Agenda Item No. 10.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing on An Ordinance to amend Chapter 13,
Solid Waste Disposal
of the Albemarle County Code by amending Section 13-301
and Recycling Transporting refuse in vehicles
to clarify the requirement that it is unlawful for any material or container to be loaded on a vehicle so that
the material or the container escapes from the vehicle. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily
Progress on November 19 and November 26, 2001.)
Mr. Tucker said that although County Code 13-301 makes it unlawful to transport refuse in a
'
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
motor vehicle unless the vehicle is constructed or loaded to prevent the refuse from escaping the vehicle.
A vehicle is deemed to be constructed or loaded to prevent the refuse from escaping if the refuse is
A
transported in a secured covered container within the vehicle which is designed to not allow sifting, leakage
or the escape of refuse therefrom. Because of this language, the court has found that a person does not
@
technically violate Albemarle County Code 13-301 when a securely covered container, such as an
'
enclosed bag of refuse, escapes from the vehicle. The proposed ordinance before the Board today is
based on Virginia Code 10.1-1424, which prohibits a vehicle from being operated unless it is constructed
'
or loaded to prevent any of its load from dropping, sifting, leaking or otherwise escaping therefrom. The
A@
proposed ordinance would amend Albemarle County Code 13-301 and make it a violation if any of a
'
vehicle's load escapes the vehicle.
A@
Mr. Tucker said the proposed ordinance was circulated to both the Chief of Police and the
Commonwealths Attorney, and they support the proposed amendments. Staff also recommends adoption
=
of the proposed ordinance subsequent to the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas said she had received a comment from a citizen who thought the ordinance implied
that items had to be in enclosed containers. She said that is not how the ordinance reads. If items are in
enclosed containers that do not leak, that is one way of meeting the requirements of the law, but another
way would be to have a cover over the load as long as the load does not leak.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Davis said the Clerks office has received a voice mail message from Ms. Bonnie McCauley
=
who objects to the use of the word container. She does not think the Board understands what the
A@
meaning of that word is to the public. She also asked that the Board defer action until they look in the State
Code because she said the State Code reference in the material she read is not the current Code
reference.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Davis what Ms. McCauley means by that last statement. Mr. Davis said she
may be confused. The second sentence in the ordinance is not something mirrored in the State Code. It is
explanatory in the local ordinance. She may be confused at that, but it is his recommendation to adopt the
ordinance as presented. Ms. McCauley was confused earlier thinking there is a new requirement for closed
containers. He said that is not the case.
Ms. Thomas said if one has closed containers they have to be loaded so they do not escape from
the vehicle. What was found was that police officers stopped people if they saw a black bag bounce out of
a vehicle, and a judge would say that if they were carrying things in a bag that was okay. The Board got the
word that the police were not enforcing the Countys law because they had this experience. Mr. Davis said
=
the second sentence of the old ordinance read that if there were closed containers in the truck, that it was
deemed to be in compliance with the first sentence of the ordinance even if the whole container fell off of
the truck into the road. Technically, that was probably correct, although it was not the intent of the
ordinance. This new ordinance closes that loophole by saying that closed containers must stay on the truck
to satisfy the ordinance.
Ms. Thomas said if the ordinance is adopted she would like to inform the public about its contents.
She is afraid that word will go around the County that things must be in enclosed containers and that will be
more reason for people to dump their trash, etc. along the side of County roads. She would like to have
some notice posted at the landfill, or the McIntire Recycling Center, or somewhere to give the right notice.
Ms. Thomas said there is a good article in the about what Stafford County is doing.
Virginia Review
At this time, Mr. Martin offered motion to adopt An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 13, Solid Waste
Disposal and Recycling, Article III, Dumping, Accumulation, Storage, Removal and Disposal of Waste, of
the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 13-301, Transporting refuse in vehicles.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
ORDINANCE NO. 01-13(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 13, SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND
RECYCLING, ARTICLE III, DUMPING, ACCUMULATION, STORAGE, REMOVAL AND
DISPOSAL OF WASTE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Chapter 13, Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling, Article III, Dumping,
Accumulation, Storage, Removal and Disposal of Waste, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle is amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec 13-301 Transporting refuse in vehicles.
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Chapter 13. Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling
Article III. Dumping, Accumulation, Storage,
Removal and Disposal of Waste
Sec 13-301 Transporting refuse in vehicles.
It shall be unlawful for any person to transport any refuse upon the streets,
roads, or highways in the county in a motor vehicle unless the vehicle is constructed or
loaded to prevent any of the load, consisting of the refuse and refuse containers, from
dropping, sifting, leaking or otherwise escaping therefrom. A vehicle may be deemed to
be constructed or loaded to prevent the load from dropping, sifting, leaking or otherwise
escaping if the refuse is transported in one or more secured covered containers within the
vehicle which do not allow sifting, leakage or the escape of refuse therefrom, and each
container is loaded in the vehicle in a manner that prevents it from dropping or otherwise
escaping from the vehicle. Any person convicted of violating this section shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor punishable as provided in section 1-115 of the Code.
(Code 1967, 15-4; 4-17-75; Code 1988, 16-3; Ord. 98-A(1), 7-15-98; Ord. 01-13(1),
''
12-05-01)
State law reference - Va. Code 10.1-1024.
''
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: September 19, September 27, October 10, October
17(A), October 17(N) and November 14, 2001.
Mr. Dorrier had read September 19, 2001, and found them to be in order.
Ms. Humphris had read the minutes of November 14, 2001, and noted for the Clerk two
typographical errors.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of October 17(N), 2001, and found them to be in order.
Motion to approve the minutes which had been read was offered by Mr. Dorrier and seconded by
Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 12:03 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to go into closed session pursuant to Section
2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and
commissions; and, under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for public facilities. Mr.
Martin wanted to add a matter concerning settlements with insurance. Mr. Davis said the matter could be
resolved outside of the Closed Session. Mr. Dorrier asked to add an item under legal matters, Subsection
(7) and title it: to consider a matter requiring specific legal advice from counsel and staff regarding a matter
pertaining to the Police Department. Mr. Bowerman added this wording to his motion.
The motion was then seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Session.
At 2:08 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr.
Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members knowledge
=
only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard,
discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
________________
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments:
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Martin made the following nominations:
Reappoint Dr. Ellora Young to the Industrial Development Authority representing the Rivanna
District with this new term to run from January 20, 2002, through January 19, 2006.
Reappoint Mr. C. Jared Loewenstein as the at-large representative on the Albemarle County
Planning Commission with this new term to run from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2003.
Mr. Dorrier made the following nomination:
Appoint Mr. Elton J. Oliver as the Scottsville District representative to the Albemarle County
Industrial Development Authority, with this term to run from December 5, 2001, through January 19, 2004.
Mr. Oliver replaces Mr. James B. Murray, Jr., who has resigned.
Mr. Bowerman made the following nominations:
Reappoint Mr. Thomas A. McQueeney as the Rio District representative to the Albemarle County
Industrial Development Authority, with term to run from January 20, 2002, through January 19, 2006.
Reappoint Mr. C. Marshall Thompson as the Rio District representative to the Equalization Board,
with term to run from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002.
Reappoint Mr. Rodney S. Thomas as the Rio District representative to the Albemarle County
Planning Commission, with this new term to run from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2005.
Reappoint Mr. Arthur B. Brown, Jr. as the Rio District representative to the Board of Social Services,
with this new term to run from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2005.
At Ms. Thomas request, to reappoint Mr. William D. Rieley as the Samuel Miller District
=
representative to the Albemarle County Planning Commission, with term to run from January 1, 2002,
through December 31, 2005.
At Ms. Thomas request, to reappoint Ms. Martha S. G. Orton as the Samuel Miller District
=
representative to the Board of Social Services, with this new term to run from January 1, 2002, through
December 31, 2005.
Motion to make the above noted appointments was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms.
Humphris, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. SP-2001-031. Orrock (nTelos) (Sign #52). Public hearing on a request to
allow construct of personal wireless comm facility 10' above tallest tree w/in 25' (w/an approx 99' tall steel
monopole) & related ground equipment. Znd RA. TM 92, P 5A. Contains approx 15.61 acs. Loc on Rt 53,
approx 1/8 ml W of intersec w/Milton Rd (Rt 732). Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on November 19 and November 26, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report. He said this request is to allow installation of a personal
wireless service facility which would include a self-supporting steel monopole, with a top elevation ten feet
above the tallest tree within 25 feet, and with a total height of 98 feet. The monopole would be equipped
with two 1.5-foot by six-foot flush-mount panel antennas and a lightning rod at the top. Ground-based
equipment would be contained in two metal cabinets six feet in height on a ten-foot by 16-foot concrete pad.
The site of the proposed facility is in a wooded lease area that is 900 square feet in area and situated at a
ground elevation between 620 and 625 feet Above Sea Level (ASL) on the side of an incline that peaks at
an elevation of 652 feet ASL. The applicants petition cites the presence of a tree which is at a height of 89
=
feet at its top, with the top elevation of that tree being 711 feet ASL as the reason for requesting a
monopole height of 98 feet which would place the top of the pole at 721 feet ASL. The average height of
all of the trees shown on the construction plans is 699 feet ASL. Access to the facilitys lease area would
=
be provided by a 19-foot extension off of an existing, paved road, and its 16-foot wide private access
easement, which starts on the north side of Route 53.
Mr. Cilimberg said that areas directly south and east of the facility site are vegetated with a mixture
of large, mature trees and dense underbrush. A heavily wooded tree line lies just west of the private road
and, with the exception of the clearings for the house and nearby utility lines, most of the property exists in
its naturally wooded state. The lease area for the existing wireless communications facility and its 80-foot
tall monopole is located approximately 170 feet east of this proposed site. The nearest dwelling is located
about 420 feet west and it is owned by the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation. Nearby properties
have been recognized as having structures or sites of historic significance.
Mr. Cilimberg said there were three balloon field tests. Staff observed that a red balloon floated at
the proposed height of the monopole was visible above the tree tops on the ridge line from a single location.
This was the parking lot at Jefferson Vineyards which is located south of the site off of Route 53. Based on
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
that balloon test, it was staffs opinion that approval of a facility employing a monopole at the requested
=
height would introduce an objectionable feature in the ridge line, and draw attention to a marginally visible
facility that exists on the adjacent parcel. As a result of that concern, the applicant also flew a balloon at a
height of 95 feet, three feet lower, or seven feet above the tree line and submitted an alternate set of plans
showing a monopole at that height.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities policy the standard conditions of
approval for Tier Two wireless facilities require the use of brown, treetop monopoles that are no more than
10 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet, Although the applicants proposal for a monopole at the
=
maximum height allowed under Tier Two is not favorable, it is staffs opinion that a facility at a lower height
=
would be comparable to the tops of nearby trees and would have less visual impact in the proposed
location.
Mr Cilimberg said the Open Space Plan notes that there are adjacent historic sites surveyed
including Simeon and the property of Monticello. Staff feels that due to the presence of trees on the incline
of the hill where the lease area would be located, view of the monopole and other equipment within the
facilities site would be obscured from Simeon, which is situated at a lower elevation. Also, the Thomas
Jefferson Memorial Foundation was contacted to observe the balloon height tests and provided a statement
that they have no objections to the facility and monopole at the proposed location and height.
Mr. Cilimberg said staffs observation of balloon tests do not favor a monopole at the proposed
=
height of 98 feet. However, because the balloons were only visible from a single nearby property, staff
could support a facility with a shorter monopole at the site. Therefore, staffs recommendation included a
=
condition that would limit the monopole to a maximum height of seven feet above the tallest tree within 25
feet to limit visibility.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff recommended approval subject to 12 conditions. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on November 13, 2001, unanimously recommended approval subject to the
same set of conditions, but added Condition 2i. reading: The diameter of the pole shall not exceed 30
A
inches at its base, and 18 inches at the top. They also recommended adding the following sentence to
@
Condition No. 5 (the wording did not get into the action letter of November 19 addressed to the applicant):
"No tree shall be removed that would allow the facility to be visible from Route 53 prior to the ARB's
approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
@
Mr. Cilimberg said they also discussed the potential of bonding to insure that Condition No. 6 would
be complied with. He said that condition concerns the disassembly and removal of the facility within 90
days of the date its use is discontinued. He said the County Attorney has provided another suggestion to
reflect the Commissions discussion of this matter. The suggested language would read: If the Zoning
=A
Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as
required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator within 14 days a certified check, a bond with
surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for,
and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
@
Mr. Davis said Mr. Bowerman had just brought to his attention that Condition No. 8 and Condition
No. 11 are duplicates except for one word - Condition No. 8 refers to pole while No. 11 refers to facility.
A@A@
He would suggest deleting Condition No. 8 and keeping Condition No. 11.
Ms. Thomas said the staff report reminds the Board that a wireless facility can be located at a
distance that is closer to a lot line than the height of the mounting structure by obtaining an easement from
adjoining properties; this is part of the new ordinance. She asked if that is part of the recommendations for
this facility. Mr. Cilimberg said it is not necessary unless the applicant requests the Planning Commis-sion
to allow for the reduced distance in lieu of obtaining an easement. Any such language would just be a
duplication of language in the ordinance.
With no further questions for staff, the public hearing was opened.
Ms. Heidi Parker was present on behalf of the applicant (nTelos). She said they are concerned
about some of the conditions. She addressed a couple of those in an E-mail she sent to the Board
members last Monday. Not addressed was the pole height recommended for approval. They applied for a
pole of 98 feet, but they would accept whatever height they can get so they can serve their users. As a Tier
II application, they know that the pole height is determined by the tallest tree within 25 feet and by the
balloon test. At this site, there is a tree which is 89 feet tall. It is not an outlying tree. The next tallest tree is
86 feet, and the next 85 feet, giving an overall difference of just four feet above sea level elevations. She
said the ten-foot above tallest tree height is an anomaly. It is based on a good tree to use. She said the
average tree height is misleading. The shortest tree within 25 feet is 52 feet, and the next tallest is 77 feet
tall.
Ms. Parker said once they saw that the tallest tree was 89 feet so it would permit a pole of 98 feet,
they conducted three balloon tests. The balloon was flown at 95 feet and 99 feet. She said a person from
the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation observed the balloon test at 95 feet and was happy with what
was seen. In their letter they said they would support an application for a pole three or four feet taller than
the 95 feet. Jefferson Vineyards also sent a letter. They gave nTelos the name of a person who could view
the balloon test and sign a letter. That person viewed a balloon test at 99 feet and the day of the Planning
Commission hearing, the applicant found out that person was not authorized to sign the letter. The defacto
owner of the property on which the vineyards is located is a man named Stanley Woodworth who also owns
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
property just south of Mrs. Orrocks property. He had just returned from vacation and had just seen the
=
notice. He was not aware of the balloon test and was upset that someone had signed a letter on behalf of
the vineyard. The applicant met with him and he attended the public hearing. He did not raise any
concerns at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the height of the pole, but expressed other
concerns (see Planning Commission minutes). They still think it is appropriate to ask for a pole which
extends ten feet above the tallest tree. They request that the Board allow such a pole height.
Ms. Parker said as to Condition No. 2i which concerns pole dimensions, when nTelos merged with
Primco last year, they inherited several poles. Because one of those poles was almost identical to one
Triton had used this year, it was earmarked for this site. It has a base of 48 inches in diameter, and a top
18.55 inches in diameter. They request that nTelos be allowed to use a pole it already has in inventory.
They recognize the base is larger than the 30 inches recommended by the Planning Commission, but
because the site will be totally obscured by a heavily wooded area around it, no one will be able to see the
base. It extends to a top of 18.54 inches which exceeds the limit by .54 inches. The applicant requests that
they be allowed to use that pole and change the condition to read: The pole to be used shall not exceed
A
48 inches in diameter of the base and 18.54 inches in diameter at the top.
Ms. Parker said the bigger issue is the condition concerning removal of the pole (she went into
great detail concerning this condition in her E-mail to the Board members). The first concern is the 14-day
limit. In a large corporation it is hard to come up with money in 14 days if nothing has been budgeted for a
site built a number of years ago. They need more time to get the money; 60 days would be ideal. Second,
the language is vague. She said in this proposed language the Zoning Administrator is given rather broad
authority to decide whether tower bonds are needed. However, if the Zoning Administrator decides that
everybody should post a tower removal bond because of problems caused by another company, she is
concerned and would like to have some assurance that this language does not apply just to nTelos. It is a
small pole, and if it had to be abandoned, it would not be hard to remove this pole. The applicant does not
want this application to be a guinea pig in drafting language to address this concern. This language was
proposed at the Planning Commission hearing, and it caught them by surprise. She talked to one surety
agent who said they would never want to deal with those types of bonds. Who would administer them for
the County?
Ms. Parker said they ask that the Board approve the pole as applied for at 98 feet in height, that it
change the condition on the tower dimensions, and that it not require a tower removal bond for this site.
She offered to answer questions.
Mr. Bowerman asked the height of the pole before it is buried. Ms. Parker said she did not know.
Mr. Bowerman said he wanted to know if the 48 inches is at ground level, or the base of the pole. Ms.
Parker had a copy of the specifications from the engineers which she showed to the Board members. This
showed that the 48 inches is at the very base of the pole. Mr. Davis said it is embedded six feet into a pier.
Mr. Dorrier asked the reason for having this tower so close to the other tower. Ms. Parker said they
felt there was a good distance between the towers. The landowner did not want the towers close together
and did not want a parallel collocation. Mr. Dorrier asked the distance between the poles. Ms. Parker said
it is 207 feet between the poles.
Mr. Dorrier asked the height of the other pole. Ms. Parker said it is 80 feet tall.
Mr. Dorrier asked if they plan to put other poles in this area in the future. Ms. Parker said she is not
privy to that information.
Mr. Dorrier asked if bonds are normally required for these applications. Mr. Davis said the County
requires bonds for various things, but it has not typically required a bond for the removal of towers. He said
he was invited to a seminar with a national consulting group who was making a sales pitch to administer the
approval process for cell towers. They listed a number of things which the County was not doing. One of
the things they strongly recommended was requiring a removal bond. In all the localities they administer,
that is a standard condition, and they had never had anyone object to such a minor inconvenience and cost.
Mr. Davis said staff looked at that idea, and thought that in 15 or more years when these facilities become
outmoded, the applicants may not be providing service and may not be easily reachable to require them to
do it by court order, so perhaps a bond makes sense.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this would be the first removal bond. Mr. Davis said this would be the first
removal bond as a standard condition. Staff has now discussed this idea with the Planning Commission
since this application was approved. The Commission thinks it is a good idea. This condition would allow
the County to capture this applicant, and every future applicant, and put into place some type of a system
which makes sense. Staff does not know at this time the cost being talked about, or the cost of a bond.
Removal of treetop towers will probably not call for a large bond. If talking about different types of towers, it
could probably be very expensive, but staff has not yet tried to determine such costs. He would anticipate
that such a condition would apply to all future tower applications, if it is the desire to impose such a
condition.
Mr. Dorrier asked if 14 days is unreasonable. Mr. Davis said that language was lifted from a zoning
provision, although that number is not that significant as long as it is tied into some system that is tied to an
approval.
Mr. Martin said that rather than imposing this condition now, he thinks the feasibility of it should be
studied first. Staff should look at something in terms of todays market rather than drawing up something
=
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
based on language from other places. If something is to be put into place that will become a standard for
all towers, it should be clear that it makes sense to everybody. As to Condition 2i, about the diameter being
30 inches, the Board discussed this on another application recently. He thinks that regulating the diameter
at the bottom of a pole that nobody can see is regulating just to be doing something. As to the first issue,
he was not present when the balloon tests were done, so does not know which height is appropriate. As to
Condition No. 2i and Condition No. 6, he cant speak about those.
=
Ms. Humphris said the Board established a standard based on a lot of information. She thinks it is
okay in this situation to depart from it because there is good reason to do so. She would like to add an
additional statement in Condition No. 2i that says it is an exception due to circumstances of the applicant.
She said that would not keep the Board from keeping to its standard. She said there was a huge discussion
and decision-making about the 30 inches.
Mr. Bowerman said that applies to metal poles, not wooden poles. The Board decided nothing.
Ms. Humphris said that is correct because it is a visual thing. It could be noted as to why the Board is doing
this so that it is not considered a change in standards, or precedent setting. Mr. Davis asked if the Board did
not allow the total height of the pole, does that change the diameter of the pole at the top. Ms. Parker said
she does not believe so. Mr. Bowerman said that according to the diagram, it appears that it would
increase the diameter at the top. Mr. Davis told Ms. Parker they would need to be careful about that
measurement.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the height of the pole is usually allowed to be three to five feet above the top of
the nearest tree. Mr. Cilimberg said it can be three, five, seven or ten. Mr. Bowerman asked if that height is
determined by visibility on the site. Ms. Thomas said at different locations, she will argue that it is not just
from the road. Mr. Dorrier asked if Monticello can view it. Ms. Thomas said Monticello said its location is
okay. Ms. Humphris said staff said it would be skylighted if it were taller than seven feet above the tallest
tree. She said that is why they were firm on keeping it at seven feet. She said that Monticello and Jefferson
Vineyards do not view this application from the same perspective as the Board of Supervisors. The Board
views it in light of its policy and ordinance.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is a difference in nTelos reception if it stays at the height recommended.
=
Ms. Parker said every foot gives a little more reception, but it is impossible to quantify that ten feet above will
work better than seven feet. If visibility is not jeopardized, they would like to have the ten feet above.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not remember the County ever holding a bond for up to 25 years. Mr.
Cilimberg said that usually bonds are related to improvements that are called for in a development. They
are actually for one year, then renewable for one year, then they are supposed to be called. This is a
unique bond; it is not in the same category.
Mr. Bowerman said he is sympathetic to what Mr. Martin said because he does not know the
administration of the bond.
Ms. Thomas said she understands that what is being discussed may never take place. But, if the
Board decided in the future that it wanted to have a bonding situation, this clause allows it to apply to this
pole. But, it does not allow the Zoning Administrator to require a bond on this pole, and it does not imply
that the Board will make this a requirement of everyone in the future. But, if the Board does, it says that this
condition will be included on subsequent tower approvals.
Mr. Martin said all of the conditions usually imposed went through a public hearing and comments
were taken from the people who would be regulated by the condition. He asked why the Board would add
a condition suddenly after these people had finished the Planning Commission hearing, and someone just
brought it up as a topic of discussion. Mr. Cilimberg said the condition came up between writing of the staff
report and the Planning Commissions hearing. It was discussed by the Commission and was
=
recommended as a condition although there was no wording for it that night. It was then inadvertently left
out of the action letter, but it was recommended as a condition by the Commission.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many poles are taken down. Are any ever taken down? Mr. Davis said that
is the whole issue. This is not a problem that will be seen for another 15 or more years; probably not until
technology makes poles obsolete. At that time, these businesses may not exist in a way that the County
can force them to take down the poles. The bond would have to exist for that period of time unless there is
some other way to do it.
Mr. Martin said he would like for the Planning Commission to discuss this wording and hold a public
hearing to take public comments on the wording. He just wants to make sure that whatever the wording
might be, it is realistic. It has already been pointed out that the 14 days is unrealistic.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has not discussed what will be done. This is just saying that if the
Board decides after public discussion and Planning Commission and Planning staff investigation, and the
legal departments investigation of what is being done elsewhere, it turns out to be something the Board
=
wants to do, it will apply to this tower as well as subsequent towers.
Mr. Martin said if the Board decides to look at this to see if it is wording that should be standardized,
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
one pole would be missed. Ms. Thomas said that is right. Mr. Davis said this language does not prejudice
this applicant at all. It simply says that if it is determined in the future that it is necessary, the Zoning
Administrator can require it. It does nothing more than that. Mr. Martin said the Board members have not
agreed, but he thinks there is sentiment that it should not be 14 days. Mr. Davis said it does not matter if it is
14 days, 60 days, or no days included. The 14 days was just a reference point for when there would be a
violation if the Zoning Administrator determined it was necessary, gave them a deadline and then they didnt
=
meet that deadline. Mr. Martin said he thinks that if you are going to err, you would err on the side of getting
it right before instituting it, especially if there were only the loss of this one pole under the condition.
Mr. Bowerman said he is bothered by it since he has no idea the cost of such a bond. Also, it has
not been investigated to see how this would be administered, how much it would cost over 25 years to do it,
how much it would cost the County to be sure the bond is kept up-to-date, and there are enough questions
that it makes him uncomfortable including the condition now.
Mr. Dorrier said he agrees. He said the cost will be passed to the consumer. Mr. Davis said there
is definitely a cost for a bond (it costs one percent of the face amount of the bond and it can cost up to three
percent depending on assets for a letter of credit on an annual basis for renewal). Mr. Bowerman said he
does not believe the County has ever had a 25-year bond. Mr. Davis said it would be an annual bond that is
renewable yearly. Over a 25-year period, the cost could be several thousand dollars.
Ms. Thomas said there was a phrase in Ms. Parkers E-mail to the Board which emphasized why it
=
is so important for the Board to do something. She was discussing whether the landowner with the pole has
to take certain risks in consideration of monetary value, and one of those is that they may be left with a pole
on their property. She said this Board has told landowners that is something they will not have to face. The
Board has said they are requiring that these poles be taken down when they are no longer being used. If
that is going to be an empty promise to the landowners because the Board has no way of enforcing it, then
that raises a red flag to her that the Board has mislead these people. By having that provision, the Board
has helped get poles in places where they otherwise would not be able to get poles. If that is an empty
promise, the Board has done a bad thing to some landowners. She is not saying it must be done today on
this pole, but she encourages staff to figure out how the Board can do this because she believes the Board
has made that promise to the community. Mr. Martin said he agrees.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the promise will be kept because these cell companies want to continue
to function in the community. Ms. Thomas said this assumes that the company is going out of business, the
unforeseen, not the usual run of business. Mr. Cilimberg said most cell companies are getting out of the
tower business. Most cell companies are leasing space on towers which are owned by companies who just
put up towers, or poles. In the future, the County may not be dealing with the cell company. This
application is not specifically to the cell company, this is being authorized as a special use permit, it is being
authorized to the land and whoever owns and operates the system.
Mr. Bowerman said he is unsure about the wording of the condition. Mr. Davis said it would give the
Zoning Administrator the ability to require a bond, but it would be subject to the Board directing the Zoning
Administrator to do it or not to do it. It would not have to be done by ordinance, but could be by policy. It
gives some flexibility as to how it is administered. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board would change
Condition No. 6 to the actual wording derived through the process. Mr. Davis said no. This wording would
A@
give the Zoning Administrator the flexibility to require the appropriate bond. Ms. Humphris said she would
like to see this condition in the approval. She thinks that the Board will be sorry in the future if the wording is
not included from the beginning of the approval.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it would say An appropriate bond based upon whatever policy the Board
A
adopts. Mr. Davis said it would be based on the policy adopted, the cost of the removal, the conditions on
@
that specific site. It would vary from site to site. Ms. Humphris said she believes it should be added. Ms.
Thomas made a clear case for it. The Board promised people it would happen. Mr. Martin said this will not
change any promise the Board made in the past. This is only one pole. Mr. Bowerman asked when the
Board will receive the next permit application. Mr. Cilimberg said it will be at the Boards next meeting. If
=
the Board decides to use this condition on this pole application, it will have to use it on every application until
it is decided how to bond. Ms. Humphris said nothing will change in this wording between this application
and the next one. Mr. Thomas said the 14 days can be enlarged. Ms. Humphris said it is either that, or she
envisions this becoming a burden to the taxpayers. Who else would pay when the Board has promised the
landowners that these things will be removed? The landowners would expect the County to see that they
are removed.
Mr. Dorrier said if this is a standard condition used throughout the country, perhaps the County
could get some information about the cost of a bond, and how it is administered, etc. Mr. Davis said the
only thing staff does not know is how much it costs to remove a tower.
At this point, Mr. Dorrier moved to approve SP-2001-031, Orrock (nTelos) with the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission except that the pole be 95 feet tall (Ms. Thomas said that is the
way Condition No. 1 reads now), that the Board approve Condition No. 6, with the exception that it be 60
days to receive a certified check, and that Condition No. 2i be changed to 50 feet and 20 feet.
Ms. Humphris asked for a statement from Mr. Davis qualifying that as departing from the usual
standard for good reason. Ms. Thomas suggested the wording This is a change from the usual stipulation
A
for this particular application. Mr. Davis added which allows for a larger pole than the standard condition
@A
to permit use of an inventoried pole.
@
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Bowerman suggested to Mr. Dorrier that his motion in reference to Condition No. 6 just say ...
A
to the Zoning Administrator a bond.... and drop the whole phrase of 14 days and a certified check. Mr.
@A@
Dorrier said he would drop the 14 days and make it 60 days. Mr. Bowerman said he was suggesting that
the sentence simply read If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to
A
guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning
Administrator a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in
an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee
shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney. Mr. Davis said dropping
@
the words within 14 days would be satisfactory.
A@
Mr. Thomas said it was noted earlier that Condition No. 8 was a duplicate of Condition No. 11. Mr.
Dorrier said to eliminate Condition No. 8.
Ms. Thomas said the conditions would be the same as though passed by the Planning Commission
down to Condition 2i where there is a change to say 50 inches at its base and 20 inches at its top, note that
this is change to allow for inventoried poles, the wording to picked up from what Mr. Davis said earlier, take
out Condition No. 8 because it is a duplicate, and Condition No. 6 to read: The facility shall be
A
disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless
telecommunications purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that
surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the
Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit
satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The
type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
@
Ms. Humphris asked about the ARB. Mr. Cilimberg said the sentence he read earlier should be
added to Condition No. 5. No tree shall be removed that would allow the facility to be visible from Route
A
53 prior to the Architectural Review Board's approval of a certificate of appropriateness.
@
Mr. Dorrier agreed to these changes. Ms. Humphris seconded by the motion. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed seven
(7) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility as
measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception
of a grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole;
2. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The metal pole shall be painted a brown that is consistent with the color of the
bark of the trees;
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by
condition number nine (9) herein;
d. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment
attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than
the specifications set forth in the attached plan entitled "Orrock (CV 327)";
e. A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width
shall not exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point may be
installed at the top of the pole;
f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to
the Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the
tree that has been used to justify the height the monopole;
g. Within one month after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant
shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of
the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above
sea-level (ASL);
h. The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition number 1 of
this special use permit without prior approval of an amendment to this special
use permit;
i. The diameter of the pole shall not exceed fifty (50) inches at its base, and
twenty (20) inches at the top. This is a change from the standard condition
which requires a smaller diameter for the pole to allow the use of a larger
diameter pole which the applicant has in inventory and has requested to use at
this particular site;
3. The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Orrock (CV
327)";
4. Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a. Antennas shall be limited to the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled
"Orrock (CV 327)";
b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole;
c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out
from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole
more than 12 inches;
5. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets,
or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed
by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and
identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the
access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and
Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated
with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or
installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the
tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community
Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200)
feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit amendment shall be
required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200) foot buffer, after
the installation of the subject facility. No tree shall be removed that would allow the
facility to be visible from Route 53 prior to the Architectural Review Board's approval
of a certificate of appropriateness;
6. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days
of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. If the
Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that
the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning
Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a
letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned
upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney;
7. The applicant, or any subsequent owners, shall submit a report to the zoning
administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each user of the
facility that is a wireless telecommunications provider;
8. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor
luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the
luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit
consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light,
to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply;
9. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of
the lease area shall not be permitted;
10. No slopes associated with construction of the facility and accessory uses shall be
created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other
stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are employed; and,
11. The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of
Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit
for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to
ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been
addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. ZMA-01-03. Rio Square (Signs #95 & 96). Public hearing on a request to
rezone 3.04 acs from R-6 & R-2 to PRD to allow town homes, single-family detached homes & office. TM
62A1, Ps 2-4, 2-5, 2-4A & 2B-13. Loc on Rio Rd (Rt 631) at intersec of Rio Rd & Wakefield Rd. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density (6-34 du/ac) in Neighborhood 2. Rio Dist.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on November 19 and November 26,
2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report. He said the proposal is for a mixed office-residential
=
development for three properties at the corner of Wakefield Road and Rio Road East. The development
will retain two homes currently on Wakefield Road and add an additional home between them. It would
also add two office buildings along Rio Road. The smaller office building would be two stories, while the
larger building would be three stories. The two buildings have an approximate total of 18,000 square feet.
Behind the offices, the proposal calls for three town home blocks with an approximate total of 22 units.
Including the three homes along Wakefield, the development would have a maximum of 25 dwelling units.
This area is designated for an urban density in the Comprehensive Plan (6-34 du/acre). The proposal is for
25 units which is 8.3 units an acre. It includes sidewalks along Rio Road as well as sidewalks internally.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff report went through a number of points of review relating to the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff looked favorably on the project offering a mixed office-residential project that
maximizes the site and minimizes the provided parking. They thought the applicant demonstrated that they
can provide parking for a development of this density and mixture of uses, that the applicant has been
sensitive to the Wakefield neighborhoods concern and maintained the character of the area, and that the
=
density range was within that proposed by the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said this request was deferred at the first Planning Commission meeting in order to
address some items identified by staff which the applicant did address. At the following Commission
meeting, after addressing those items, the Commission on November 13, 2001, unanimously
recommended approval of this petition subject to three proffers. He said that originally there were five
proffers, but proffers 3 and 4 from the original list were not felt to be necessary by the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg said that associated with this request is a special use permit which is actually part of
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
the PRD zoning which would allow for the office use. The Planning Commission also recommended
approval of that permit. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas asked if there are a total of two driveways to three houses. Mr. Cilimberg said he
believes the existing driveway will stay.
At this time, the public hearing was opened and the applicant asked to speak.
Mr. Steve Runkle said he was present to answer questions. He said it was a long process getting to
this point, and he does not want to lengthen it further. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Runkle brought him into the planning stage of this project well over a year
ago, even before the plans were put together. He is satisfied that the Planning Commissions review of the
=
request the first time identified issues which were then cleared up. He is satisfied that the proffers which
have been offered, executed and accepted by the County Attorney, are acceptable.
Ms. Thomas said the public hearing had not been held yet, and asked if there were anyone present
who wished to speak. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was immediately
closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman said this is a mixed use and it is in keeping with what the county is trying to
accomplish with smart growth. It incorporates some commercial office which is consistent because of its
scale with the existing community. For all of those reasons, he will accept the Planning Commissions
=
recommendation, and move to approve ZMA-2001-003 subject to the proffers dated November 20, 2001.
Mr. Davis said for clarification, approval of this PRD included the approval of a special use for professional
offices. Mr. Bowerman said that is correct.
Ms. Thomas said this is truly the first application for in-fill since adopting the Neighborhood Model.
She appreciates that fact. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
(Note: The proffer, as approved, is set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: 11/20/01
ZMA # 01-003
Tax Map & Parcel Number(s): TMP 62A1 Parcels 2-4,2-4A,2-5,2(B)13
3.15 Acres to be rezoned from R-2 and R-6 to PRD
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its
duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall
be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for
the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning
request.
1. The development on Tax Map 62A1 Parcels 2-4, 2-4A, 2-5, and 2(B)13 shall be in
general accord with the plan produced by Daggett and Grigg Architects, titled "Rio
Square Preliminary Site Plan" (title sheets and sheets C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, L-1, and
A-1), dated July 16, 2001 and last revised on August 20, 2001. On Sheet A-1, the
relative location and massing of the structures, landscaping, the building roof lines,
and roof pitches are proffered as part of the Application Plan for ZMA01-03. Final
design details such as materials, jack arches, types of windows and first floor
master bedrooms are not proffered. No building construction shall begin unless
and until the Design Planner determines that the architecture is in general accord
with sheet A-1 of the Application plan.
2. The owner may vary the square footage of office use or the number of townhouse
units on the Application Plan; however, footprints of the buildings and uses within the
buildings shall be in general accord with the Application Plan and the parking
provided for the office use shall be not less than 90% of the parking spaces required
for that use, and the parking provided for the townhouse dwelling units shall be not
less than 40% of the parking spaces required for that use, as these uses are defined
in Section 4.12 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on December
5th, 2001.
3. In order to limit office uses with high parking demands, permitted uses of the
property, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only those
uses allowed in Section 23 Commercial Office of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance in effect on December 5th, 2001, a copy of the section(s) being attached
hereto, except the following:
a. Dentist offices (a portion of 23.2.1.2);
b. Churches; and
c. Businesses whose sole purpose or primary activity is providing:
i) Data entry and/or storage, subscription and/or credit card transaction
processing; or,
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
ii) Solicitation of sales and/or order processing by telephone, mail order,
internet, catalog sales or other similar medium; or,
iii) Mailing list preparation.
Signature of Owners Date
Lloyd F. Wood TM62A1, Parcel 2-4,2-4A 11-27-01
Patricia E. Wood TM62A1, Parcel 2-4,2-4A 11-27-01
Dale R. Sadler TM62A1, Parcel 2-b-13 11-27-01
Florence J. Sadler TM62A1, Parcel 2-b-13 11-27-01
Herbert L. Harlow TM62A1, Parcel 2-5 11-28-01
Mary E. Harlow TM62A1, Parcel 2-5 11-28-01
Russell L. Harlow
by Herbert L. Harlow, Attorney-in-Fact 11-28-01
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Martin said Mr. Henry Hinnant has submitted his resignation from the Workforce Investment
Board. Ms. Thomas said the last time there was a vacancy, the Board asked the people involved to find an
appointee.
Mr. Martin said he had received a letter from Ms. Rosell Smith asking that the Board reappoint Ms.
Katherine Cornell to the Public Defender's office. Ms. Humphris noted that Ms. Cornell had indicated that
she did not wish to be reappointed. Ms. Thomas said she would check into this.
__________
Ms. Humphris mentioned the letter of November 13, 2001, from Mr. Mark Graham sent to the State
Corporation Commission with a lot of questions about the application of Old Dominion Electric Companys
=
proposal for a power plant in Louisa County. She wants to be sure the SCC does answer these questions.
This proposal could have a major impact on Albemarle County. He has also asked about the cumulative
affect of all of the proposed power plants. This particular application is very close to the Albemarle
boundary near Gordonsville. There are water implications, as well as visual and air quality affects. Mr.
Tucker said he will check to be sure a reply has not been received yet.
__________
Ms. Humphris said she submitted questions regarding the proposed County Citizen survey to Ms.
Lori Spencer. She understands the survey will be available for the Board members to see on Monday. She
thinks it is important to get the questions right, and not ask questions the public knows nothing about. She
has major concerns about questions concerning health care, which the Board cannot furnish. She is
concerned about questions concerning extension of water and sewer services which the Board cannot
grant.
__________
Mr. Bowerman asked who is dealing with people in the Earlysville area about the question of
parking changes in the commercial area. He knows this has been discussed with the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if there has been a plan submitted to Planning, or are they just requesting advice. Mr.
Bowerman said he has a letter in which it is stated that both the Planning and Zoning Department believes a
zoning text amendment needs to be submitted to allow for excess parking of rental cars on a preapproved
parking lot in a district zoned light industrial. Mr. Davis said he believes these people have been working
with the ZTA work team on parking amendments. Mr. Cilimberg said that next week at the Planning
Commissions meeting they will be working on shopping center parking changes. Wholesale changes in
=
parking regulations are still being worked on. Mr. Bowerman said he does not want to meet with anyone
until he has more information about the request. Mr. Cilimberg referred Mr. Bowerman to the Zoning
Administrator.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she would like to request that the Board start the process for a zoning text
amendment to distinguish between contractors office and equipment storage yard that presently exists
A=@A@
in both Light Industry and Heavy Industry districts. She said people on Morgantown Road have found that
NAIC, which is the North American Industry Classification system, may be of some help in making this
distinction. Earlier she had asked that staff look into whether properties zoned light industrial are
appropriate for that zoning. This is a different approach to a hot issue in one area of the County that could
well become an issue in any part of the County.
Ms. Thomas said what has made this a concern is something this action will not help. It would be
for the future. This concerns a construction company. Mr. Bowerman said the company is currently
located on SPCA Road and they are being dislocated by the Western Route 29 Bypass. Ms. Thomas said
what she is requesting would allow the Board to be clearer on what are appropriate uses in Light and Heavy
Industrial districts.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff is working on a number of applicant zoning text amendments as well as
resolutions of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance which have already been passed by the Planning
Commission and the Board, some of them relating to DISC. They have been prioritized and the team is
meeting every other week to discuss these. He asked where Ms. Thomas request should be in order of
=
priority since it will move work on some other amendment farther into the future. Mr. Bowerman said he
would place it at the bottom of the priority list. He does not think this particular situation will happen again
December 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
soon. Ms. Thomas said it would not affect the present application, so it is not a rush item.
Mr. Davis said that at some point there would need to be a resolution of intent adopted by the Board
or the Planning Commission to put this in line for study and amendment. Mr. Cilimberg said staff normally
brings to the Commission or the Board an analysis of the request, and suggests a resolution of intent at that
time. Mr. Davis said there is some magical language that needs to be in a resolution of intent in order for
A@
it to be legal. There was a Supreme Court case decided several years ago when Fairfax County had a
zoning text amendment to change the classification of a bunch of office uses. Because they did not use the
language spelled out in the statute, it invalidated the entire zoning text amendment. Whenever there is a
controversial zoning text amendment, his staff makes sure the magical language is included.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not know why, but he received many calls about that site also. Mr.
Davis said for the Board members information, the Board of Zoning Appeals upheld the Zoning
=
Administrators determination that the use is a permitted use at that location. That decision has been
=
appealed to the Circuit Court. He is in the process of filing the return and the writ, so the County is in
litigation at this time on that point.
__________
Ms. Thomas said during the discussion of the Peters Mountain site (cell tower for the ECC),
Albemarle County as the applicant is being asked to do the same things it asks of a commercial applicant.
She would find it useful if staff could find a similar tower(s) that Board members could view either in person
or through photos. A tower of similar height and location.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she had already mentioned this morning her trip to Baltimore County, Maryland.
She said they were received by their planning director, by the executive director of the Valleys Conservation
=
League, and a County Council member. They want more information about the Countys cell tower
=
ordinance. The other person they met was the Virginia Outdoors Foundation counterpart in Maryland. That
person feels zoning is important, the County cannot just depend on easements. Then, they got the exact
opposite opinion from a citizen who has been working on easements. It seems that Baltimore County is
doing a good job of keeping their growth in their designated growth areas.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she represented the Board at an event where a visiting French dignitary was
brought to Charlottesville. Unfortunately, she was not presented to this person, nor recognized as being the
Boards Chairman. All of the laurels went the Mayor of Charlottesville. The event was held at the Boars
==
Head Inn. Mr. Martin said it is true that at most events the Chairman is not recognized, and that should not
be the case.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. With no further business to come before the Board, at 3:25 p.m., motion was
offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adjourn this meeting until December 10, 2001, at
1:30 p.m., in Room 331 on the Third Floor of the County Office Building for a meeting with State
Legislators.
Ms. Humphris said she believes everybody should have a name tag because there are so many
legislators. Ms. Thomas said the tentative plan is to have each legislator speak for three minutes at the
beginning of the meeting so they can introduce themselves to this Board. It is her theory that they will listen
better is they are not thinking about speaking to the Board. Also, David Blount is working on getting a
couple of items to Legislative Services because December 10 is the deadline for getting items to them to be
drafted for the next session.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 02/13/2002
Initials: EWC